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

2010 Expert Witness Amendments — Communications between Testifying Expert & Party Representative Unprotected — Suggestion That Communications with Consulting Expert Subject to “Exceptional Circumstances” Standard Despite Circuit Decisions

Whole Women’s Health v. Lakey, 301 F.R.D. 266 (W.D. Tex 2014): Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Disclosure of Written Communications between Vincent Rue and Defendants' Experts [**3]  (Dkt. No. 115); State Defendants' Response in Opposition (Dkt. No.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Deposition Misconduct — Recidivism as Evidence of Willfulness, Requiring Harsher Sanction — Insults, Directing Witness How to Answer Improper — Zealous Advocacy No Defense (Good Quotes)

Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26629 (E.D. La. Mar. 4, 2015): Before me is a Motion for Costs and Sanctions brought against Defendant, Offshore Liftboats, LLC ("OLB") by Plaintiff, Calvin Howard. (Rec. doc. 178). OLB has…
Continue Reading

2010 Expert Witness Amendments — Expert Communications with Non-Lawyer Client Employees and Agents ≠ Work Product — Sharing of Drafts with Client, Its Auditor ≠ Waiver — Documents Created by Non-Lawyers Privileged If Contain Advice of Counsel

United States v. Veolia Env’t N. Am. Operations, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154717 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2014): Pending before the Court is Petitioner United States of America's Motion to Enforce Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Summonses against Veolia Environment…
Continue Reading

Date & Time Stamp on Voicemail, Like Header on Fax, ≠ Hearsay — Nor Is Voicemail Offered for Fact Statements Were Made — No Best Evidence Bar Where Provider Deleted Original — Witness Testimony OK; Maybe Copy, Too

Walker v. Asset Acceptance LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95128 (D.N.J. July 10, 2012): a. The Voicemail Message and Plaintiff's Testimony Are Not Hearsay "Hearsay" means a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current…
Continue Reading

RICO — Operation and Management — Need to Show Degree of Cooperation Beyond Bounds of Normal Commercial Relationships — Test for Lower Level Participants: Fungible or Essential Role — Acting in Individual vs. Enterprise’s Interest

Nesbitt v. Regas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35552 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015): Plaintiff Diane Goldring Nesbitt ("Goldring") brings this action against eleven defendants, alleging that each played a role in a fraudulent scheme that resulted in substantial losses to…
Continue Reading

RICO — Injury Must Flow from Investment of Racketeering Income under § 1962(a) and Be Caused by Acquisition of Interest under § 1962(b) — Allegation That Parent Is RICO Person and Sub is Enterprise ≠ Distinctiveness under § 1962(c)

N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co. v. CIGNA Healthcare, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3711 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015): This is a dispute over an insurer's obligation to pay a hospital for medical services provided to insured patients. Under the…
Continue Reading

Experts — Differential Diagnosis Is OK under Daubert, But Expert Cannot Neglect to Consider a Potentially Explanatory Hypothesis — Elimination of Potential Causes Must Be Founded on More Than Subjective Belief or Speculation (Good Quote)

Nelson v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1620 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2015): In a toxic tort case in California, a plaintiff must show both general causation, which is "that the substance at issue was capable of causing…
Continue Reading
Previous219220221222223224225Next

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