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

Inherent Power/§1927 Sanctions Imposed for Ethical Violation — Model Rule 4.3 Governing Contact with Unrepresented Persons — $28,000 Monetary Sanction for Deceiving Lay Person into Cooperating, Defaulting

Daniel v. Marino, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21828 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2016): Songwriter Daniel Marino appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his copyright infringement suit.1 The district court found that, because…
Continue Reading

Affidavit of Plaintiff Attached to Complaint Is Not a “Written Instrument” within Rule 10(c) Deemed Part of Complaint — Must Be Legal Document Defining Rights, Like Contract, Will, Note, Security — Circuit Split

Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015): Plaintiff-appellant Aidan A. Smith appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Is Manifest Disregard a Permissible Ground to Overturn an Award under the FAA? — Circuit Split — If So, It Requires More Than Legal Error — Arbitrator Must Appreciate & Ignore Clearly Governing Legal Principle

Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165427 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016): C. Manifest Disregard of the Law under 10(a)(4) Respondents bring their manifest disregard for the law assertion under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). Courts vary in…
Continue Reading

Are Pro Hac Vice Fees Recoverable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920? — Circuit Split —Cost of Video May Be Taxed in Addition to Deposition Transcript If Reasonably Necessary — Uncertainty as to Witness Attendance at Trial Is Sufficient

Olesky v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171505 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Henryk Oleksy ("Oleksy") sued Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") for patent infringement. On September 29, 2015, the presiding District Judge ruled that [*4]  GE…
Continue Reading

Removal: If Plaintiff Adds Non-Diverse Defendant within 21 Days of Answer Per Rule 15(b), Should Court Honor That & Remand, Given Absolute Right to Amend, Or Deny Joinder under § 1447(e)? — Caselaw Split — Factors under 1447(e)

Edmond v. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170896 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016): Proceedings (In Chambers): Order GRANTING Motion to Remand Before the Court is Plaintiff Britani Edmond's motion to remand this action to state court. Dkt.…
Continue Reading

Intervention — May a Magistrate Judge, Who Is Conducting All Proceedings Through Trial and Judgment by Consent of the Parties, Rule on a Motion to Intervene Filed by a Person Who Has Not Consented? — Circuit Split

Davis v. Union Pac. RR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182824 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2015): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 19, 2015, Hallmark County Mutual Insurance Company – as the subrogee of Plaintiffs Daniel Davis and…
Continue Reading

26(g) Sanctions — Impeachment vs. Substantive Evidence under 26(a)(1) — Is It Impeachment If You Offer It Only to Impeach Or Is It “Partially Substantive” If the Court Says So? — Circuit Split — Definition of Substantially Justified

Olivarez v. George Grp., Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22049 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2016): Attorneys Shawn K. Fitzpatrick and Timothy Flocos (collectively, "Appellants") were sanctioned by the district court for certifying that their clients' initial disclosures under Federal Rule …
Continue Reading
Previous155156157158159160161Next

Recent Articles

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

nherent 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

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

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