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

RICO Statute of Limitations: (1) Under Separate Accrual Rule, Plaintiff May Recover Only for Additional Damages Suffered as a Result of the New Predicate Act and Not for Earlier Predicates Outside the 4-Year Limitations Period — (2) No Equitable Tolling Absent Diligence in Filing Suit — 3.25 Year Delay between Indictment and Filing Suit Too Long (Even 9 Months May Be Too Long) — “Equity Favors Those Who Diligently Pursue Their Known Rights” (Good Quote)

Baltrusaitis v. Int’l Union, UAAAIW of Am., 86 F.4th 1168 (6th Cir. 2023): Plaintiffs are current and former engineers employed by automaker FCA US LLC (now Stellantis). In 2011, FCA transferred the work that plaintiffs had previously performed at FCA’s…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 41(b) Overlaps with Inherent Power to the Extent It Authorizes Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with a Court Order — Rule 41(b) Dismissal OK for Failure to Comply with Court Order on Notice of the Drastic Ramifications and When Predicated on a Protracted Course of Dilatory Or Otherwise Improper Behavior — Dismissal Sanction May Be Upheld When Point of Noncompliance with Order Is to Accelerate Appeal

Assassination Archives v. United States DOJ, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14873 (D.C. Cir. June 18, 2024) (unpublished): This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and…
Continue Reading

RICO and Constitutional Standing — Concrete Injury Required for Constitutional Standing (And, Thus, for Standing in RICO Case, Notwithstanding a Disagreement Among the Circuits as to Whether Concrete Injury Is Required for RICO Standing) — At the Pleading Stage, General Factual Allegations of Injury May Suffice, But They Must Be Plausible and May Not Be Conclusory

Cooper v. US Dominion, Inc., 2023 WL 8613526 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Plaintiffs Jennifer Cooper, Eugene Dixon, Francis Cizmar, Anna Pennala, Kathleen Daavettila, Cynthia Brunell, Karyn Chopjian, and Abbie Helminen filed this action against US…
Continue Reading

(1) RICO and Securities Fraud: Conviction Exception — Caselaw Not Uniform as to Whether Plaintiff’s Damages Must Result from Securities Fraud Directed at Plaintiff — Appeals: 4 Factors Court of Appeals Considers in Deciding Whether to Entertain Arguments Newly Raised on Appeal

Buck v. Compton, 2023 WL 8812472 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION *1 Thomas Buck, a former financial advisor, defrauded several of his clients, including Janice Compton. Following Buck’s criminal conviction for fraud, Compton sued Buck, and the parties…
Continue Reading

RICO Statute of Limitations — Accrual: Actual or Inquiry Notice — Equitable Tolling — Courts Have Inherent Flexibility to Choose Grounds for Disposing of a Case without Reaching the Merits

Garrasi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2024 WL 191802 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Robert Garrasi appeals…
Continue Reading

RICO: (1) Concrete Financial Loss Requirement — (2) 9(b) Requirements for Mail/Wire Fraud — (3) An Instruction ≠ A Representation and Cannot Constitute Mail/Wire Fraud — (4) Allegations of Frivolous, Fraudulent or Baseless Litigation Activities, Without More, ≠ A RICO Predicate Act

UMB Bank, NA v. Guerin, 89 F.4th 1047 (8th Cir. 2024): Famous American Regionalist artist Thomas Hart Benton and his wife passed away in 1975, leaving behind a family trust (the “Trust”) that included hundreds of works of…
Continue Reading

Rooker-Feldman Not Avoidable By Pursuing A Concurrent Collateral Attack on the State Court Judgment at the Same Time It Is Attacked in Federal Court — Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman Requires That Party Have Been Precluded from Presenting His or Her Case in State Court

Boudette v. Oskerson, 2024 WL 1342613 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff Daniel Boudette appeals from the district court’s order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, alternatively, for…
Continue Reading
Previous12131415161718Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 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

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