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

Removal — Diversity Jurisdiction — In Declaratory & Injunctive Actions, the Amount in Controversy = Value of the Object of the Litigation — Is Injunctive Relief Measured from Perspective of Plaintiff or Defendant? — Circuit Split

Poplar Avalon, LLC v. Sprintcom, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86497 (W.D. Tenn. July 5, 2016): Before the Court is Plaintiff Poplar Avalon, LLC's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 8) filed on June 14, 2016. Defendant Sprintcom, Inc. has responded…
Continue Reading

RICO Personal Jurisdiction — Does § 1965 Provide Nationwide Jurisdiction or Only Nationwide Service? — Circuit Split — Issue: Must Plaintiff 1st Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over 1 Defendant before Court May Exercise Jurisdiction Over Nonresiden

Domain Protection LLC v. Keating, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135093 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016): Before the court are Defendant Paul Keating's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), filed September 2, 2015; and Plaintiff Domain Protection's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Appeals — Circuit Won’t Consider Args. Lacking the Reasoning, Authorities Required by FRAP 28(a)(8)(A) — RICO SOL Not Based on Last Predicate Rule — Court Construes Pro Se Filings Liberally But Isn’t Their Advocate (Good Quote)

Armstrong v Wyoming Dept. of Envt’l Quality, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 179 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017): *   After examining Armstrong's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn't materially assist in the determination…
Continue Reading

Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute: 5-Factor Test — Not Enough for Pro Se, after 5 Years of Litigation, to Announce He’s Not Ready to Go to Trial — Abuse of Discretion: Step 1 — Did Trial Court ID Correct Legal Rule?

Calloway v. Hayward, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10207 (9th Cir. June 6, 2016) (split panel): Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his case based on his representations at a trial confirmation hearing that he…
Continue Reading
Previous148149150151152153154Next

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