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

Text Messages Authenticated by 902(11) Certification from Carrier Plus Evidence Cell Number Was Defendant’s, Self-Identification in Texts and Their Contents — 902(11) Certification Also Renders Texts Non-Hearsay

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 2015 Ky. Unpub. LEXIS 70 (Ky. Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2015): A Kenton Circuit Court jury found Appellant, Pharo Wilson, guilty of three counts of criminal attempt to commit murder and found him to be a second-degree…
Continue Reading

Email Evidence — Forwarded Emails Are Duplicate Originals within Best Evidence Rule — Circumstantial Authentication Includes Fact That Content within Messages Is Logically Interconnected and Connected to Oral Communications

State v. Robinson, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 929 (Kan. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2015): John E. Robinson, Sr., was charged with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women–killings that constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Corporate Party’s Website Judicially Noticed for Fact That Corporation Is Active, Not Defunct, Contrary to Its Counsel’s Representations on Motion to Withdraw

Caveman Foods, LLC v. Ann Payne’s Caveman Foods, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150001 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015): Plaintiff Caveman Foods, LLC, a California limited liability company, filed this action against defendant Ann Payne's Caveman Foods, LLC, a Pennsylvania…
Continue Reading

YouTube Admissibility — Content Posted on a Party’s YouTube Account by the Party Is Admissible as an Admission — Party Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy as to Posted Material

Stotler v. Alvarado, 2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 1098 (Del. Super. Nov. 7, 2012): D. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Defendants' Use of Videos and Commentary Uploaded to Plaintiff's YouTube Account Lastly, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to preclude Defendants' use of…
Continue Reading

RICO Class Action over Illegal Pyramid Scheme Not Certifiable Based on Inference of Reliance on Presumed Legality — Plaintiffs Could’ve Sought to Profit from Illegality — No Causation, Especially Where Illegality May Have Been Been Disclosed

Torres v. SGE Mgmt., LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17974 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2015): Stream Energy, its marketing arm Ignite, and a number of other defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") appeal the district court's order certifying a class of some…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Filing Even a “Manifestly Deficient” Amended Complaint at Court’s Invitation Doesn’t Needlessly Multiply the Proceedings, But Filing Deficient Papers to Defend It Does Do So

Nollner v. S. Baptist Convention, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18270 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2015): Ron and Beverly Nollner appeal the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, and denying the Nollners' motion for leave to amend. Even …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Crime-Fraud — Prima Facie Showing (Factors) — More Stringent Standard If Very Act of Litigating Is Alleged to Further the Fraud — Does It Matter If Mohawk Overruled Perlman? (Circuit Split)

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17633 (2d Cir Oct. 6, 2015): Intervenor-appellant is an investment company (the "Company") whose president and owner (the "Owner") is the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation into tax fraud.…
Continue Reading

Error to Deny Amendment Because Plaintiff Stood on Complaint after Premotion Conference — Request to Amend in Brief Enough — Group Pleading OK for Common Law Fraud — Fraud Need Only Be As Plausible As Other Explanations—Corporate Scienter Defined

Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec. LLC, 797 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015): This case, like so many others of late, concerns liability for investment losses. Specifically, it asks who, if anyone, ought to shoulder legal…
Continue Reading

RICO — Third-Party Payers Whose Pharmacy Benefits Managers Relied on Pharma Manufacturer’s Misrepresentations to Authorize Reimbursement State Concrete Injury and Bridge-Like Causation

In re Avandia Mktg. Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18633 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2015): This interlocutory appeal involves claims brought against GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) by third-party payors (TPPs), based on GSK's alleged misrepresentation and …
Continue Reading
Previous196197198199200201202Next

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