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

Settlement Conditioned on Vacatur of Opinion OK Where Court Urges Settlement & Settlement Otherwise Impossible — How Broad Is the Court’s Discretion to Vacate in Order to Facilitate Settlement?

Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12813 (11th Cir. July 12, 2016): This appeal concerns [*3]  a settlement agreement made contingent on vacating certain orders of the District Court. After being…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — § 1927 Award May Include All Straws, Not Just the Back-Breaker — Civil vs. Criminal Fines Distinguished — District Court May Always Reconsider — Party’s “Approach Has Little But Chutzpah” — The Rule of Holes (Good Quotes)

Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Smith, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13195 (7th Cir. July 19, 2016) (Note:  the earlier Seventh Circuit opinion in this case, which is referenced below, is excerpted in our post of August 11, 2014; the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct Covered — Doubling of Attorney’s Fees Still Civil, Not Criminal — District Court May Order Enhanced Bond to Cover Appellate Attorney’s Fees Where Pervasive Misconduct (= Another Sanction)

Ingenutiy13 LLC v. Doe, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10557 (9th Cir. June 10, 2016): Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, and John Steele (collectively, "the Prenda Principals") appeal the district court's award of attorney's fees, including a punitive multiplier, and a second…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions: Dismissal for Failure to Appear at Pretrial Conference — Factors — No Need to Consider Merits — The “Federal Courts Are Not a Playground for the Petulant or Absent-Minded” (Good Quote)

Callahan v. Commc’ns Graphics, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13315 (10th Cir. July 21, 2016): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* *   After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in…
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication: Page in Party’s Name, Uses His Unique Nickname Which Is Also An Email Address of His, Photos and Personal Information Are His, and He’s Seen Using His Phone Around the Time the Posts Are Made

Jones v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3794 (Tex. Ct. App. April 13, 2016): Appellant, Stanford Dewayne Jones Sr., appeals his convictions on three counts of arson. He presents three issues on appeal contending that (1) the evidence is…
Continue Reading

Rule 37/Inherent Power Sanction of Default for Flouting Discovery Orders, Failing to Attend Deposition — Entire Cost of Defense, Not Just Amount Caused by Failures — 5 Exceptions to Rule That Appeals Courts Won’t Consider Issues Not Presented Below

Denis v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10989 (11th Cir. June 17, 2016): Appellant Ronald Denis appeals the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs for his repeated discovery violations. After careful review, we…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b)/Inherent Power Sanctions: Dismissal OK Where Plaintiff Uncooperative in Initial Production & Then Flouts Discovery Order — Court Not Required to Coax Compliance via Incrementally Increasing Sanctions — Review Not Perfunctory (Good Quotes)

Timms v. LZM, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12377 (5th Cir. July 5, 2016): Plaintiff–Appellant Heather Timms appeals from sanctions levied against her by the district court. Timms contends that the district court abused its discretion when it struck her…
Continue Reading
Previous170171172173174175176Next

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