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

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (Pre-37(e)): Even If Adverse Inference Instruction Is Permissible, Court Is Not Required to Issue It — Parties Allowed to Argue Their Positions to the Jury — Whether to Instruct Depends on Motive / Degree of Fault

Garcia Miranca v. Wyatt, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Rafael Garcia Miranda and Olga Martha …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: While Rule 11 Requires Conduct Violating 11(b)(1), (2), (3) or(4), Violation of the Duty of Candor Is Sanctionable under Inherent Power — Counsel’s Less-Than-Clear Comments Cannot Mislead Court That Knows True Facts

Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 202 (Ct. Fed. Claims Mar. 16, 2017): RULING REGARDING THE COURT'S DECEMBER 5, 2016 NOTICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RCFC 11(b) WAS NOT VIOLATED This bid…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine — If Judicial Notice Independently Taken by Court, Need to Give Parties Notice Per Rule 201(e)

DistributorsOutlet.com LLC v. Glasstree, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76248 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016): Plaintiff DistributorsOutlet.com, LLC, an online merchant, brought this action in December 2011 against Glasstree, Inc., a web hosting and design company; two Glasstree principals; and Glasstree…
Continue Reading

Appeals — No Jurisdiction to Review Arguments That Should’ve Been, But Weren’t, Raised in Prior Direct Appeal — Untimely 2d Motion for Reconsideration Doesn’t Toll Deadline for Filing Appeal

Lora v. NHS, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19333 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2016): Yenny Lora and Mercedes Palma appeal the imposition of costs, and their attorney, Raul Jauregui, appeals the imposition of sanctions. The United States District Court for…
Continue Reading

Privilege/Work Product — Crime Fraud Exception Requires Proof Lawyer’s Work Product Was Used in Furtherance of Fraud — Not Enough to Show That Client Was Thinking about Defrauding and Wanted to Discuss It

In re Grand Jury Matter#3, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1498 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2017): PER CURIAM.1 1   In response to Appellant John Doe's Petition for En Banc Rehearing (which also requests panel rehearing, a presumption in any event under…
Continue Reading

RICO and Malpractice: Lawyer/Law Firm Defendants Immune from Liability under Noerr-Pennington Unless Plaintiff Can Allege Facts Showing Their Litigation Filings Were Objectively Baseless

Mir v. Greines, martin, Stein & Richland, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1439 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017): Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), …
Continue Reading

RICO: Claim Lawyer Conspired with Client Requires More Than Awareness of Opponent’s Allegations (Good Quotes) — Mere Association with Conspirators Isn’t Agreement — Willful Blindness = Subjective Belief Plus Steps to Avoid Truth

Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1736 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017): If the allegations in the supplemental complaints filed in this case are to be believed, the defendant law firms and lawyers were involved in a…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Is Substantial Compliance with the Separate Motion Requirement of Rule 11(c)(2) Sufficient? — Only in the 7th Circuit and Only Sometimes (Not Here) — Circuit Split, with All Other Circuits Always Requiring an Actual Separate Motion

N. Ill. Telecom, Inc. v. Riffner, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321 (7th Cir. Mar. 10, 2017): JUDGES: Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. OPINION BY: HAMILTON This appeal pivots on the procedural…
Continue Reading
Previous146147148149150151152Next

Recent Articles

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

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

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