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 on Pro Se Require (1) Prior Judicial Warning Claims Are Frivolous and (2) Awareness by Pro Se of Ample Authority Holding Squarely against Him or Her — § 1927 Available against Pro Se?

Simmons v. Methodist Hosp. of Dallas, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): After Methodist Hospital terminated him, Jason Simmons brought an employment discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment, and Simmons did not appeal. Two…
Continue Reading

Does Rule 15(b)(2) (Which Provides That, If An Issue Not Raised by the Pleadings Is Tried by the Parties, It Is to Be Considered As If It Had Been Pled) Apply to Summary Judgment? Circuit Split

Posey v. NJR Clean Energy Ventures Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146688 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2015):  1   Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2), Defendant "effectively consented by its conduct" to resolve the new theories of liability…
Continue Reading

Attorney’s Violation of Ethical Rules in Disclosing Privileged Communications Is Irrelevant to the Communications’ Admissibility — Advice-of-Counsel Defense Waives Privilege Even If Defense Is Invalid

Am. Plastics Techs., Inc. v. Dymond Pharmcare Indus., Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162716 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2015): Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants American Plastics Technologies, Inc. and Rao Murukurthy ("Murukurthy") (collectively [*4]  "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Dymond Pharmcare Industries, Ltd. ("Dymond") and Obong…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Document Posted on a Foreign or Domestic Official Website Is Presumptively Authentic If Government Sponsorship Can Be Verified by Visiting Website — Voluminous Length May Require Additional Proffer

Berry Plastics Corp. v. Intertape Polymer Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162609 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2015): Plaintiff, Berry Plastics Corporation, requests that the court take judicial notice of the European Patent Office ("EPO") patent opposition prosecution history of European…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Baseless Objection to Class Action Settlement — Good Quote: Burying One’s Head in the Sand, in the Hope That a Judge Will Disregard an Adverse Decision by the Supreme Court, Is a Paradigm of Frivolous Litigation

In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156546 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2015): The Direct Purchaser Class moves for Rule 11 sanctions against Objector Michael Narkin (Doc. 1743), and Narkin moves for sanctions against Class Counsel (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Lay Opinion Testimony Based on Hearsay Statements Made by Unidentified Individuals, Well Beyond Witness’s Personal Experience, Violates Rule 701 — Email Containing Hearsay That Is Relevant to State of Mind Only If Hearsay Is True Is Inadmissible

United States v. Lloyd, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21056 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2015): Five defendants appeal their convictions or sentences for selling unregistered securities. The defendants worked for telemarketing "boiler rooms" in California and Florida, soliciting investments in partnerships…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Failing, in Summary Judgment Opposition Brief, to Make Specific Arguments in Defense of Claims Subject to Rule 11 Motion Is Not Equivalent to Withdrawing Them Per Safe Harbor

Barrett-Bowie v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20706 (5th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015): [Plaintiff’s counsel] appeal the district court's Rule 11 sanction order reprimanding them for submitting pleadings that contained factual allegations that Appellants knew were false.…
Continue Reading
Previous193194195196197198199Next

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