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

Supreme Court — Diversity Jurisdiction — The Citizenship of Any Unincorporated Entity (Here, a REIT) Is Determined by the Citizenship of Its Members — Calling Such an Entity a Trust Changes Nothing

Americold Realty Trust v Conagra Foods, Inc., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 1652 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2016): Federal law permits federal courts to resolve certain nonfederal controversies between "citizens" of different States. This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but…
Continue Reading

Privilege — Federal Circuit Recognizes Patent Agent-Client Privilege — Scope = Communications Furthering Tasks Outlined in Patent Office Regs — 2-1 Panel Decision

In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016): Petitioners Queen's University at Kingston and PARTEQ (together, "Queen's University") are engaged in a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung…
Continue Reading

Judicial Estoppel May Be Invoked by Party Not in Prior Proceeding Who Would Suffer No Prejudice And Even If Adversary Did Not Prevail on the Issue and Would Not Receive Unfair Advantage by Changing Position

Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3225 (11th Cir. Feb. 24, 2016): The equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, "precludes a party from asserting a . . . …
Continue Reading

Attempt to Offer Expert Testimony as Lay Opinion Rejected — 701 v. 702 — Court Should Be Vigilant to Preclude Manipulative Conduct Designed to Thwart the Expert Disclosure and Discovery Process (Good Quote)

United States v. Afyare, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4173 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016): This is one of two companion opinions from this panel in separate appeals from a much [*3]  larger criminal prosecution. In this appeal, the government challenges…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Lost Evidence Must Be Relevant, Not Dispositive — Only Nondispositive Sanctions Apt If Dismissal Due to Factors Unaffected by Lost Evid. — Dismissal Requires Conduct So Egregious as to Amount to Forfeiture (Good Quote)

McCarty v. Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2696 (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2016): David McCarty, a subcontractor, was killed during the installation of a garage door at the Defendant-Appellee Covol Fuels (Covol) coal mine in Muhlenberg…
Continue Reading

Facebook Page Authenticated by Contents — Including Alleged Owner’s Nickname, Photo, References to Gang and Crime — and Witness Testimony from Facebook Friend

State v. Inkton, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 613 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016): [*P1]  Defendant-appellant Ronald Inkton ("appellant") brings this appeal challenging his convictions for rape, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and having weapons while under disability. Specifically, appellant argues that:…
Continue Reading
Previous184185186187188189190Next

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