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: Indian Tribes Are Governmental Entities Not Subject to RICO Liability — They Are “Persons” But Immune — They Have the Mens Rea of Their Officials — Injunctive Relief Is Available in Private RICO Actions

Gingras v. Rosette, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66833 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016); Plaintiffs have filed a class action against individuals and companies involved in an online lending venture operated by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian…
Continue Reading

Deposition Errata Sheets: To What Extent May Changes Be Made? — Does Sham Affidavit Rule Apply? — Circuit Split — Substantive vs. Transcription Errors vs. New Evidence or Confusion Rectifying

LAW REGARDING ERRATA CORRECTIONS Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61657 (D. N.M. May 10, 2016): Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the deponent, within 30 days after notification that the transcript …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Standing — Injury in Fact Must Be Both Particularized and Concrete, Even in the Context of a Statutory Violation Providing a Cause of Action and Statutory Damages

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3046 (U.S. May 16, 2016): This case presents the question whether respondent Robins has standing to maintain an action in federal court against petitioner Spokeo under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Prevailing Party Ordered to Pay $135,000 in Attorney’s Fees for Discovery Violations — Meet-and-Confer Requirement Satisfied in Part by Email Communications and Calls

Houston v. C.G. Security Servs., Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7473 (7th Cir. Apr. 25, 2016): This appeal arises out of a lawsuit brought by plaintiff-appellee Angel Houston, who sustained injuries from a fall during a New Year's Eve party…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Jurisdiction under §27 of Exchange Act = §1331 Arising Under: Either Federal Law Creates Claim or Grable — Use of 1927-1933 Dictionaries to Construe 1934 Statute — Good Quote on State Court Comity

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3049 (U.S. May 16, 2016): Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 48 Stat. 992, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78a, et seq., …
Continue Reading

Motions to Dismiss — Mere Mention of Document in Complaint Doesn’t Make It Integral or Usable on 12(b)(6) Motion — Reference to Another Lawsuit Doesn’t Incorporate All Litigation Documents — RICO Untimeliness Dismissal Reversed

Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7678 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2106): Plaintiffs-appellants Vikas Goel and Rainforest Trading Ltd. (jointly, "plaintiffs") appeal August 7, 2015 and August 27, 2015 judgments of the United States District Court for the …
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication Insufficient — Expert Pulled Metadata from One Side of Chat But, Because Conversants Were No Longer “Friends” Then, Data Showed Unknown Account as Source of Messages — Expert Admits Messages Could’ve Been Altered

Adoption of Nash, 2016 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 520 (Mass. Ct. App. May 12, 2016): The mother appeals from a decree issued by a judge of the Juvenile Court determining that the best interests of her son, Nash, would be …
Continue Reading

Service of Process: Rule 4(d) Does Not Impose Duty to Pay Costs on Foreign Party Who Declines to Accept Service — Sanctions: No FRAP 38 or § 1927 Sanctions for Appeal That Is Weak But Not Frivolous

Cox v. Koninklijke Philips, NV, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8688 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016): Former employees at a glass and bulb manufacturing plant brought this action against their employer, Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("Philips"), and its Dutch parent…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Plaintiff’s Testimony That He Visited & Photographed Premises, When In Fact His Lawyer Did, Leading to over 100 Revisions on Dep Errata Sheet = Bad Faith, Leads to Dismissal

Vogel v. Tulaphorn, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2916 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016): Martin Vogel and his attorney Lynn Hubbard III appeal the district court's order granting terminating sanctions.1 We affirm. 1   Vogel additionally appeals the district court's orders…
Continue Reading
Previous177178179180181182183Next

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