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

Importance of Considering Lesser Sanctions Where Central Blame Lay with Strategic Decisions of Counsel — General Inappropriateness of Penalizing Blameless Client for Attorney’s Behavior (Good Quotes)

Flores v. Ethicon, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5751 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014) (Wynn, J., concurring that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiffs' refusal to comply with…
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Despite Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Court May Disqualify Counsel — Potential for Abuse Lower If Motion Brought by Former Client — Appeals Court May Sua Sponte Judicially Notice Related Case Filings

Zerger & Mauer LLP, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10060 (8th Cir. May 30, 2014): This appeal is a companion to Baker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 745 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014). In Baker, we determined that the district court…
Continue Reading

Where Sanctions Sought under Rule 37, Due Process Violated by Sanctioning under Inherent Power (Circuit Split (Second vs. Third)) — $6,400 Fine Is Likely “Substantial” and Thus Likely Requires Criminal Contempt Protections

Eastcott v. Hasselblad USA, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10362 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014): This patent appeal involves camera lens technology and the district court's imposition of sanctions for a "sham" invoice requesting expert fees. In 2011, Appellant John…
Continue Reading

RICO / Sherman Act — Statute of Limitations — Non-Conspiracy Claims — “Acts That Are Merely Unabated Inertial Consequences (of A Single Act) Do Not Restart The Statute Of Limitations”

Z Techs. Corp. v. Lubrizoil Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9597 (6th Cir May 23, 2014): Z Technologies alleges that The Lubrizol Corporation violated the Sherman, Clayton, and analogous state-law antitrust acts by raising prices and enforcing a non-compete clause …
Continue Reading

ESI Needn’t Be Produced Either as Kept in Usual Course of Business Nor Organized and Labeled to Correspond to Production Request, But in the Form Usually Maintained or In Reasonably Usable Form, Regardless of Requested Format

Nat’l Jewish Health v. WebMD Health Servs. Grp., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69669 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2014) (Hedges, Special Master): The WebMD ESI Production Complies With Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) 1. Rule 34(b)(2)(E) provides that unless otherwise stipulated or ordered…
Continue Reading
Previous248249250251252253254Next

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