New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Joseph Hage Aaronson

YouTube Admissibility — Video of Defendant Using Gang Hand Signals, Stating Name of His Gang, and Uttering Same Words Allegedly Used at Time of Shooting Relevant to Identification and Motive, Not Cumulative or Unduly Prejudicial

Ross v Santoro, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74564 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74548 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2017): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE Background1 1   The following summary is taken from the…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege: Use of Corporate Email System to Communicate with Counsel = Waiver Where Employee on Notice That Company May Monitor Emails — Whether Employee Has Legitimate Expectation of Privacy Is Highly Fact-Dependent (Good Quote)

United States v. Finazzo, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3972 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2017): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and…
Continue Reading

RICO Conspiracy — Not Enough to Show Defendant’s Association with Conspirators, Knowledge of Conspiracy, Presence during Conspiratorial Discussions — Must Show Awareness of Scope of Enterprise & Objective Manifestation of Intent to Participate in It

Rosemann v. St. Louis Bank, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9075 (8th Cir. May 24, 2017): This case continues to chronicle the legal consequences flowing from Martin Sigillito's Ponzi scheme known as the British Lending Program (BLP). See, e.g., Aguilar v.…
Continue Reading

Email Evidence Admissible under R. 408 to Show Settlement Reached — Emails’ Competing, Differing Headers Declaring Emails Unusable Show Offer/Counteroffer, Not Separate Agreement — No Estoppel, Can’t Unilaterally Change Evidence Law (Good Quote)

Ian v. Whitehead, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 595 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 16, 2017): P1 Hannah Ian ("Wife") seeks special action relief from the superior court's ruling precluding the introduction of settlement-negotiation emails exchanged between her attorney and former …
Continue Reading
Previous138139140141142143144Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

RICO Pattern: No Closed-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Lasted Less Than One Year (11th Circuit) — Conspiracy Allegations Governed by Rule 8(a), Not 9(b) — Two Paths to Establishing A RICO Conspiracy: Agreement to Objective Or to Commit 2 Predicate Acts — Plaintiff Need Not Show Reliance When The Predicate Acts Are Wire Fraud — In Dicta, 11th Circuit Intimates That Even If The Primary RICO Violation Allegations Fail, The RICO Conspiracy Allegations Might Survive, But Is Probably Talking About A Conspiracy to Commit The Predicate Acts

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice