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

Voicemail Admissibility — Rule 801(d)(2)(C) — Voicemail Left by A Purportedly on B’s Behalf Is Hearsay Absent Independent Proof That A Was an Agent of Or Was Otherwise Authorized by B to Leave the Voicemail

State v. Davis, 2016 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 323 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2016): P1 Following a jury trial, Mohammed Davis was convicted of three counts of aggravated harassment. On appeal, Davis argues the trial court abused its discretion…
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Lower Court Affirmed If Record Reveals Any Sound Basis for Its Action (Good Quote) — Denial of Sanctions Appropriate Where Written Discovery Corrected Incorrect Aspects of 26(a) Disclosures

Garcia v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19786 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2015): This appeal arises from the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS" or "Defendant"), and denial…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Deliberately Disobeying Order = Bad Faith for Inherent Power — Appeals: Appellant May Not Incorporate by Reference Arguments Made Below — Ethical Violations Bar Service As Qui Tam Relator

U.S. ex rel. Holmes v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5370 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2016): Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Holmes brought this qui tam action as relator for the Government under the False Claims Act. He appeals the district…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Must Allow Enjoinee to Seek Permission for Additional Filings (Even If He’s Up to His Sixth Amended Complaint) and Can’t Shut Him Down Categorically

Gottlieb v. Ford, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2330 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2016): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.…
Continue Reading

Twitter Admissibility — Third-Party Tweets = Hearsay on Issue of Actual Confusion in Trademark Dispute Absent Authentication from Declarants

Ponelman v. Nike, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17662 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2016): Daniel Poneman ("Plaintiff") brings suit against Nike, Inc. ("Nike"), and Footlocker, Inc. ("Foot Locker"), (collectively "Defendants") for trademark infringement related to his "SwagAir" mark pursuant to …
Continue Reading
Previous180181182183184185186Next

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