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

RICO — Statute of Limitations Accrues When Plaintiff Is Aware of Its Injury, Even If Not the Identity of the Wrongdoer — Must Exercise Diligence to Determine Identity and Commence Suit within 4 Years

Rob’t L. Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16296 (10th Cir. Aug. 25, 2014): The Robert L. Kroenlein Trust owns and operates J&B Liquors, a business in Torrington, Wyoming. In 2005, a salesman for one of J&B's beer …
Continue Reading

Contractual Duty to “Reimburse” Attorneys’ Fees “Incurred” by Victorious Party Doesn’t Require Payment of Fees That New Employer Agreed to Cover for Employee-Defendants — Contract ≠ Rule 37 / Statutes or Rules Generally (Good Quotes)

TruGreen Cos., LLC v. Mower Bros., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12513 (10th Cir. July 2, 2014): Back in 2006 TruGreen managers felt betrayed when a handful of employees left to work for a rival lawn care company. TruGreen sued,…
Continue Reading

Removal—§1447(d)’s Appeal Bar Doesn’t Apply If District Court Lacked Authority to Remand under §1447(c)—§1446(b)’s 1-Year Time Limit to Remove Diversity Case Is Procedural & Waivable, Like 30-Day Initial Removal Period

Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14978 (9th Cir. August 4, 2014): A state court action may not be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the action was filed. …
Continue Reading

Experts: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Even If Exclusion Determines Outcome — Not Ipse Dixit If Qualified Expert Applies Reliable Tools — Industry-Promulgated, Result-Oriented Expert Guidelines Rejected — Bias Is for Jury

Adams v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14471 (11th Cir. July 29, 2014): Christina and Christopher Adams ("the Adamses") filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America ("LabCorp"), alleging that its cytotechnologists were negligent in failing to …
Continue Reading

Requests for Admission (RFAs) — Party Whose Discovery Efforts Lead Adversary to Concede Fact First Denied “Makes the Proof,” Is Entitled to Rule 37(c)(2) Sanctions — Including Fees for 37(c)(2) Fee Application

McCarthy v. Ameritech Publishing, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15519 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014): Kathleen McCarthy filed suit against Ameritech Publishing, Inc. (API) and AT&T, her former employers, to recover damages for  [**2]  claims related to the August 2008…
Continue Reading

RICO Violations Didn’t Cause Plaintiffs’ Loss of Property Where They Lacked the Funds to Cover Mortgage Payments or Taxes — Merely “Peripheral References” to Issue in Rule 50(a) Motion Fails to Preserve It

Uni-Rty Corp. v. Guangdon Building, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478 (2d Cir. July 2, 2014): Plaintiffs-counterclaim-defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Uni-Rty Corp. and Golden Plaza Limited Partnership ("GPLP") (collectively, "plaintiffs") appeal from the January 16, 2013 amended judgment of the United States District…
Continue Reading
Previous241242243244245246247Next

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