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

YouTube Admissibility — Video of Defendant with a Gun That, Based on Other Evidence, the Jury Could Reasonably Infer Was the Murder Weapon Was Relevant and Not Overly Prejudicial Even If Jury Concluded It Wasn’t the Murder Weapon

People v. Acosta, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7011 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2016): Defendant Anthony Paul Acosta shot David Slape once in the head and killed him for Slape's gold chain. Convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Repeated Efforts to Interfere with and Delay Discovery, Including Disregard of Court Order Directing Testimony at Deposition = Evidence of Bad Faith Sufficient to Support Default Judgment

Steffen v. Menhise (In re Steffen), 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16329 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016): Terri Steffen, proceeding pro se in these three consolidated appeals, appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's entry of default judgment in…
Continue Reading

Must Federal Courts Give Preclusive Effect to Unreviewed Determinations of Law Made by State Administrative Agencies? — Circuit Split — (Factual Findings Are Preclusive)

Buttaro v. City of New York, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125965 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016): 1.Analysis 1.1. Collateral Estoppel Defendants argue that the ALJ's "factual determinations with respect to plaintiff's misconduct are afforded preclusive effect," and that as a result,…
Continue Reading

RICO: Corp. + 2 Officers + 3 Software Consultants + PR Firm ≠ Enterprise — Outsiders Lack Common Purpose & Corp. Indistinct from Officers — Even If No Reliance Needed in Omissions Case, Prox. Cause Still Essential

Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16269 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): In this civil RICO case, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of customers claiming that Spirit Airlines, Inc. ("Spirit") engaged in an elaborate criminal enterprise …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence: Whois.com Printout ID’ing Website Owner Is Hearsay But OK on Summary Judgment — Right to SJ Must Be Proved Even if No Opp — Default Alone Insufficient for Default Judgment

Black Point Marine, LLC v. Black Fin Yacht Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127699 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016): Introduction The original Black Fin Yacht Corporation ("Original-BFYC") was a boat manufacturing company that dissolved and was reestablished ("Old-BFYC"). Old-BFYC had…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Still Required for Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (3d Cir.) — Destruction of Evidence during Pendency of Case without Reference to Case and for Purpose of Avoiding Storage Costs Doesn’t Evidence Bad Faith or ≠ Spoliation

Orologio of Short Hills Inc. v. Swatch Grp. (U.S.) Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611 (3d Cir. June 24, 2016): Appellants Orologio of Short Hills and Orologio International Ltd. (collectively, "Orologio") seek reversal of the District Court's order (1) granting…
Continue Reading
Previous164165166167168169170Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

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 Property 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?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice