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

FRAP 38 Sanctions Not Lightly Invoked — Law Allows for Reasonable Disagreements (Good Quotes) — Mistaken Labeling of Motion as Rule 11 Forgiven — Ignored District Court Warning Case Was Unreasonable & Vexatious

CFE Grp., LLC v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22914 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2015): The principal question in this appeal is whether the district court correctly refused to enjoin a state court from adjudicating a case that…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Unaccepted Offer of Judgment or Contractual Offer Doesn’t Moot Case (Here, Class Action) — Does Deposit of Full Amount? — Must Liability Be Admitted? — Must Court Enter Judgment for Plaintiff?

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016): Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Dismissal as the Reciprocal of Default Judgment — Fact That Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Testimony Would Lead to Dismissal Cited as Supporting Harsher Sanction

Secrease v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): This appeal is a reminder of a district judge's inherent power to impose the severe sanction of dismissal (on a plaintiff) or …
Continue Reading

Public Access to Motion Papers Hinges on Whether the Motion Is “More Than Tangentially Related to the Merits,” Not Whether It Is Dispositive (9th Cir. — 3 Opinions) — Other Circuits’ Case Law Reviewed

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 374 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016): The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) appeals from the district court's order denying CAS's motions to intervene and unseal documents filed in…
Continue Reading

Removal — If Complaint Seeks Nonmonetary Relief, Notice of Removal Need Only Plausibly Allege That Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 — Valuing Injunctive Relief from Plaintiff’s vs. Defendant’s Viewpoint (Circuit Split)

Heartland Mt. Airy of Cincinnati OH., LLC v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18688 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2015): Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading

Personal Jurisdiction — Is a Corporation Still Subject to Jurisdiction Because It Appointed an Agent for Process When It Registered to Do Business? — Circuit Split — Admission of Personal Jurisdiction in One Case Doesn’t Extend to Another

Takeda GMBH v. Mylan Pharma. Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3490 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016): Plaintiffs, Takeda GmbH, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement suit against Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Defendant"),…
Continue Reading

Website Evidence — Because a Website Is a Dynamic Collection of Changing Data, Reference to It in Complaint Does Not Incorporate Any Specific Page as of Any Specific Date — No Judicial Notice of Wayback Machine in Seventh Circuit

My Health, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172252 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2015): My Health, Inc. alleges that General Electric Company infringes its federally registered trademark, MY HEALTH. (The court will use all capitals to refer…
Continue Reading
Previous189190191192193194195Next

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