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

Rule 806 Doesn’t Allow a Party-Declarant to Attack Her Own Credibility with Hearsay — Plain Error Isn’t Synonymous with Obvious Error (Good Quote) — No Need for Expert If Lay Person Is Equally Able to Draw Conclusion

United States v. Tsoa, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21590 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2014):   Ging-Hwang Tsoa was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012),…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Rule 606(b) Bars New Trial Based on Juror’s Affidavit of Another Juror’s Statements in Deliberations — No Exception for Juror’s Lying during Voir Dire — Juror’s Experience Unrelated to Case ≠ “Extraneous” Information

Barger v. Shauers, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8294 (U.S. Dec. 9, 2014): Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that certain juror testimony regarding what occurred in a jury room is inadmissible "[d]uring an inquiry into the validity of a verdict." The …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — All Writs Act Cannot Be Used to Enjoin Arbitration Based on Claim-Preclusive Effect of Prior Federal Judgment That Merely Confirmed Prior Arbitration without Considering Merits — Claim Preclusion Is for Arbitrators to Decide

Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Inv. Auth., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 549 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2015): This case presents the question of whether the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), permits a federal district court to enjoin a…
Continue Reading

Third Party Emails Produced by Party Sufficiently Authenticated by Act of Production when Offered by Opponent But Hearsay / Admissibility Objections Must Separately Be Satisfied

Broadspring, Inc. v. Congoo, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177838 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2014): Plaintiff's second motion in limine seeks to exclude nine e-mails that were sent to Broadspring or Mindset Interactive employees by third-party software distributors with whom they …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — No Abuse of Discretion to Deny § 1927 Sanctions, But Rule 26(g) Sanctions Are Mandatory, Discretion Limited to Type — Amount Paid in Settlement May = Admission Claim Sound — Recidivism Is Factor in Choosing Sanction

Rojas v. Town of Cicero, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 72 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015): Merced Rojas contended in this suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that the Town of Cicero violated the First Amendment by firing him because he supported…
Continue Reading
Previous226227228229230231232Next

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