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

Sanctions — Striking of All Pleadings “Is a Serious Sanction That Requires an Explicit Factual Basis from the District Court” — Willfulness May Be Inferred from Party’s “Pattern of Behavior” (Good Quotes)

Southern U.S. Trade Ass’n v. Guddh, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7570 (5th Cir. April 22, 2014): The defendant, Sumit Guddh, appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions against him and the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs…
Continue Reading

RICO — Particularity Requirements — Single Fraud Perpetuated over Several Years Lacks Continuity — “Injury Resulting from Mere Subdivisions of One Fraudulent Scheme Is Not Sufficient to Form a Pattern” (Good Quotes)

DeWitt Ins., Inc. v. Horton, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72384 (E.D. Mo. May 28, 2014): Dewitt Insurance, Inc. ("Dewitt") is an insurance management company…. Horton worked for Dewitt as an independent agent and as a "producer" from March 20, 1998 …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanction of Exclusion of Belatedly-Appointed Expert — Factors — Burden of Proving Justification or Excuse — “Particularly Wide” Discretion Accorded Trial Court, Which Need Not Explicitly Consider Guiding Factors

Wilkins v. Montgomery, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8412 (4th Cir. May 5, 2014): We first discuss Appellant's challenge to the district court's exclusion of her expert, Dr. Voskanian. This issue implicates both the February 8 Order excluding Dr. Voskanian, and…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Safe Harbor for Surviving Summary Judgment — Factual Allegations Made Collectively against Multiple Related Entities Excused Due to Complexity of Corporate Structure

Manhattan Constr. Co. v. Place Props. LP, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4911 (11th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014): Place Collegiate Properties Company ("PCPC") appeals the district court's decision denying its motion for sanctions. After review and with the benefit of oral…
Continue Reading
Previous249250251252253254255Next

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