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

Experts — Supplemental Report Must Be Based on Additional or Corrected Info Unavailable when 1st Report Issued — Lack of Diligence by Counsel No Excuse for Lacking Info — Report Stating Additional Rationales & Opinions Not Supplemental

Curtis v. Crop Prod. Servs., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118005 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2014): This matter comes before the Court on a series of motions, triggered by the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Allow Kent Martin, …
Continue Reading

RICO, Reliance & Class Certification — In Financial Fraud Cases, Payment May = Circumstantial Proof of Reliance Sufficient to Show Predominance — RICO Extraterritoriality & Proximate Cause = Merits, Not Class, Issues — No Fraud on Market in RICO

CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23043 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014): This case requires us to consider the certification of a proposed class action to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act…
Continue Reading

YouTube Video Authenticated by Circumstantial Evidence Identifying Individual and Items Depicted, and Establishing Where and Roughly When Video Recorded, without Evidence from YouTube Personnel

United States v. Broomfield, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014): After a jury trial, James Franklin Broomfield, Jr. appeals his conviction and 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of…
Continue Reading

Does a Conflict between Members Defeat Associational Standing? — Circuit Split — Types of “Profound” Conflict — General Requirements for Associational Standing

Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131101 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2014): ANALYSIS Standing is a threshold subject matter jurisdictional requirement. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). Plaintiff has…
Continue Reading

Hearsay & Privilege — Statement to Own Counsel Not against Penal Interest (Rule 804(b)(3)) Because Confidential — Residual Exception: Dismal Public View of Lawyers Makes Exclusion of Testimony Reasonable under 807(a)

United States v. Awer, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20700 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2014): A federal jury convicted Defendant Kent Awer of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. He appeals.  Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence (FINRA Rules) — Arbitration: Award May Be Confirmed in Any District Allowed under General Venue Statute — Court Looks to Arbitration Clause and Agreed Arbitral Rules to See If Parties Agreed Otherwise

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Monaco, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149419 (D. Colo. Aug. 26, 2014): This case is before the Court pursuant to an Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge issued by Judge Raymond P. Moore on March…
Continue Reading

Dismissal as Discovery Sanction — Availability — Factors (5th Circuit) — Attorney’s Fees and Costs Imposed on Counsel Personally under Rule 37 for Deposing and Redeposing

Progressive Waste Solutions of La., Inc. v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150199 (W.D. La. Oct. 22, 2014): MEMORANDUM RULING ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AND ORDER On October 17, 2014, the undersigned held a hearing…
Continue Reading
Previous231232233234235236237Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

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

Inherent 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?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice