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

Class Actions — Rule 23(f) — If Damages Are So Huge That Defendants May Be Forced to Settle, Careful Consideration Given to Request to Appeal — Unethical for Plaintiff’s Counsel to Send Class Notice to Defendant to Enlist It as a Class Member

Chapman v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5962 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014): The defendants in this class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, seek our leave to appeal from the district…
Continue Reading

Sua Sponte Rule 11 Sanctions — Second Circuit Standards — Seeking Extensions of Time to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion “Substantive[ly]” Sufficient to Support Finding of Bad Faith When No Substantive Response Ever Filed

Rankin v. City of Niagara Falls, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903 (2d Cir. June 12, 2014): Appellant Christina A. Agola, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Finding of Factual Frivolousness Requires that No Evidence, or Only Patently Frivolous Evidence, Is Offered to Support a Claim — Any Evidence, Even If Weak or Self-Serving, Precludes Sanctions

Lawson v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7199 (11th Cir. April 17, 2014): Ross Lawson, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to reconsider this court's order dated November 14, 2013, denying his motion for an injunction…
Continue Reading

RICO — Closed-End Continuity = at Least 2 Years — Open-End Not Shown by Fact the Enterprise Primarily Conducts a Legitimate Business Where the Nature of the Predicate Acts Do Not Imply a Continuing Threat Because All Are Directed at a Finite Goal

W&D Imports, Inc. v. Lia, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7038 (2d Cir. April 16, 2014): Plaintiffs-Appellants W&D Imports,  [*2] Inc. d/b/a Willis Honda and David Davis (together "Willis") appeal from the April 23, 2013 judgment of the District Court dismissing…
Continue Reading
Previous247248249250251252253Next

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