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

Disqualification Appeal Not Mooted by Settlement — Representation of Homeowners’ Ass’n Doesn’t Bar Suit against Controlling Corp. after Control Ends — Director’s Claim of Personal Representation Rejected — Limits of Advocate-Wit. Rule

Legacy Villas at La Quinta Homeowners Ass’n v. Centex Homes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16799 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2015): Appellant law firm Peters & Freedman, LLP appeals (1) the district court's April 30, 2012 order disqualifying the law firm …
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication — Alleged Author’s Admission That One Facebook Account Was Hers and That She Wrote One Comment over Her Web Name on Another’s Account Authenticated All Comments Attributed to Her on Both Accounts

Donley v. Donley, 2015 Ark. App. 496, 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 590 (2015): Temika Donley appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order denying her petition to terminate Lakitcher ("Kisha") Donley's guardianship over Temika's daughter, M.B. On appeal, Temika argues that…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Where Separate Motion Requirement of Rule 11 Dishonored, Sanctions Award Deemed Sua Sponte & Cannot Include Fees — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Can’t Bar Response to Sanctions Motion

Martin v. Bravenec, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17406 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2015): Rowland J. Martin, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals orders of the district court awarding attorney's fees to Edward Bravenec, the Law Office of McKnight and Bravenec, and…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Factors in Deciding Whether to Sanction — Improper Purpose: Indicia, Incompetence Defense — Client Given 1 Free Pass for Frivolous Legal Argument, On Notice in Future

Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co. Ltd. v IHFC Properties, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138998 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2015): This matter arose when a lawyer had something that might have become, with some thought, a decent idea, executed it badly …
Continue Reading

A Motion for Reconsideration Is Not a Vehicle for Relitigating Old Issues, Presenting New Theories, Securing a Rehearing on the Merits or Otherwise Taking a Second Bite of the Apple — Good Quote

In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp. Secs. & Deriv. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6823 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2015): [A] motion for reconsideration "is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on …
Continue Reading

Does Violation of Statute That Provides No Claim Bar RICO Claim for the Violation? — Commercial Relationship vs. Enterprise — Oper. & Mgmt.: Performing Services for Other Entity vs. Enterprise — Benefits of Exhibits to Complaint on 12(b)(6)

Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14503 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2015): Plaintiff Bryana Bible obtained a student loan under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. She defaulted in 2012 but promptly agreed to enter …
Continue Reading

2009 Revision to Rule 15(a) Can’t Be Read to Permit Amendment of Complaint “Once As a Matter of Course … after” Motion to Dismiss If Complaint Was Already Amended Once before the Motion Was Served

U.S. ex rel. D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17214 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 2015): Plaintiff-appellant Jeffrey D'Agostino (the relator) challenges both the dismissal of his qui tam action and the antecedent denial of leave to further amend…
Continue Reading
Previous199200201202203204205Next

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