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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Email Referred to in Complaint — Extensive Reliance on Wikipedia and Investopedia for Understanding of Complex Financial Instruments and Transactions in Deciding In Limine Motion

SEC v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72648 (D. N.M. June 3, 2016): MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion in Limine Regarding KPMG, filed March 17, 2016 (Doc. 390)("Motion"). …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — 7th Circuit Overrules Precedent, Holds Non-Monetary Sanction Appealable — Itemizes Harms from Findings — Absence of Appellee Doesn’t Affect Appealability — Settlement of Attorney’s Fees Doesn’t Moot Sanctions

Martinez v. City of Chicago, 823 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2016): The principal question presented by this appeal is whether an order by a district court imposing a sanction on a lawyer for misconduct in a case before the court …
Continue Reading

Removal: Second Removal Notice May Be Entertained Only If There Has Been a Change of Circumstances Such That It Is Based on a New and Different Ground — Does This Rule Apply in CAFA Cases?

Taylor v. Cox Commc’ns Cal., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65656 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016): I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This wage-and-hour class action was filed by Plaintiff Bill Taylor against Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Barring Victim Who Defrauded Court-Supervised Settlement Fund from Collecting More and Ordering Return of All Received — Opportunity to Respond in Writing Satisfies Due Process — Implicit Inherent Power Sanction

In re Deepwater Horizon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6468 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016): In 2014, Special Master Louis J. Freeh filed a motion with the district court overseeing the Deepwater Horizon settlement fund to have Capt Jay, LLC, and…
Continue Reading

RICO: Pyramid Scheme Is Per Se a Predicate Act — Foreseeability & Inference-Based Causation Theories — Class Actions: Plaintiff Needn’t Show Reliance on Mail Fraud, So No Individual Issues Preclude Finding Predominance

Torres v. S.G.E. Mgmt., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) (en banc): The Plaintiffs-Appellees brought a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced [*3]  and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, alleging that Stream…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Postings on FDA Website: Materials Submitted to FDA as Required by Law, FDA Approval, Studies Cited in Complaint — Consideration Doesn’t Convert 12(b)(6) into Summary Judgment Motion

Caton v. Stryker Sustainability Solutions, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181033 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2015): Proceedings (In Chambers): Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Motion to Dismiss Before the Court is Defendants Corin Group PLC and Corin …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 & Inherent Power Sanctions for Challenging Authenticity of Contract Counsel Has Copy Of — Bad Faith Silence to Admit Possession — Misconduct Aggravated Where Contract Electronic — $ Sanctions Not Limited to Loss

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135219 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2016): This is a civil RICO lawsuit arising out of online loans the plaintiff, James Dillon, received at predatory interest rates. One of the defendants, Generations…
Continue Reading
Previous162163164165166167168Next

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