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/9(b): Where Many Sued, Complaint Need Not Necessarily ID False Statements by Each But Conclusory Conspiracy Claim Not Enough — Each’s Role Must Be ID’ed; Collective Action OK If All Did Same Thing — Basis for Belief (Info+B) Must Be Stated

Puri v. Khalsa, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 287 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of …
Continue Reading

Video Evidence Should Be Reviewed by the Court In Camera before It Is Displayed to Jury — Fact That Attorney Referred Plaintiff to Physician Is Relevant, Admissible — Fact Plaintiff’s Counsel Advertises Excluded

Ernestine v. Hi-Vac LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141290 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2016): This matter is before the Court on the Motion in Limine [143] filed by Plaintiff Lionel Ernestine ("Plaintiff"), and the Motion in Limine [147] filed by…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Once It Is Obvious An Asserted Position Has No Basis, Continuing to Assert It Exposes Counsel to Sanctions — The Court Aims To Resolve This Dispute, Not To Litigate The Same Points Ad Infinitum (Good Quotes)

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1187 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2017): Hartford Iron doesn't like the way Valley Forge has performed on its contract. After three motions to dismiss, numerous excess…
Continue Reading

Removal: May a Non-Forum Defendant Remove before Service Is Effected on a Forum Defendant? — Circuit Split — Held, a Forum Defendant May Remove before It Has Been Served Even If There Are No Non-Forum Defendants

Hwang v. Gladden, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177479 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 21, 2016): This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to remand (Doc. 9), which is opposed by defendants Brent Gladden and University Real Estate Group, LLC (collectively,…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine: Court Declines to Take Judicial Notice Because of Wayback Machine’s Disclaimer of Warranty of Accuracy — Res Judicata: Prior Judgment Bars More Detailed Allegations of Prejudgment Misconduct, But Not Post-Judgment Incidents

Nassar v. Nassar, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 456 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2017): THIS CAUSE is before the Court on (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 63; "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss"), filed on March…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 37/Inherent Power Dismissal for Bribing Witness — Rule 37 Extends to Hiding Evidence, Lying, Soliciting Lies — 7th Circuit Reverses Clear & Convincing Standard for Dismissal under Rule 37 (Circuit Split) — Gross Negligence May=Fault

Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23404 (7th Cir. Dec. 30, 2016): Upon finding that plaintiff Armando Ramirez had offered a witness money in exchange for his favorable testimony, the district court dismissed Ramirez's suit with prejudice. …
Continue Reading

RICO: Res Judicata Based on State Court Mandamus Action — Dismissal without Prejudice of Some Claims Doesn’t Bar Appeal If They’re Time-Barred — Order Stipulated As to Form Concedes Only That Order Embodies Ruling — Undeveloped Arguments Waived

Scott v. Reif, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16311 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): James and Helen Scott, owners of Best Way Auto Sales (Best Way), brought this action against a number of parties, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,…
Continue Reading

Removal: Does Filing a Voluntary Cross Claim in State Court Waive Right to Remove? — Circuit Split — Letter from Plaintiff Forwarding Unsigned, Unfiled Stip Dismissing Only Non-Diverse Defendant Triggers 30-Day Removal Period

Boggs v. Harris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177154 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016): I. Introduction Pending before the court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiffs Roy Boggs and Annette Boggs ("plaintiffs"). (ECF No. 5.) On June 28, 2016,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions—Even If Making Argument for Change in Law Is Futile Because Same Judge Has Rejected It in the Past, You Must Do So—Not Enough to Say You Plan to Appeal the Issue—No Duty to Anticipate/Respond to Affirmative Defense in Complaint

Foreman v. Wadsworth, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22598 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016): Anthony Foreman, who used to own a restaurant in Rockford, Illinois, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois tort law. He alleged that a …
Continue Reading
Previous153154155156157158159Next

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