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

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

§ 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Ethical Rules as Gauge — Clear & Convincing Evidence — Deceiving Unrepresented Party into Default & Inculpation — Evidence Excluded, Default Opened — Civility Duties — Good Quotes

Marino v. Usher, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69521 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2014): Throughout this copyright litigation, Plaintiff's Counsel, Francis Malofiy, has behaved in a flagrantly unprofessional and offensive manner. Seventeen of the twenty Defendants in this action have moved…
Continue Reading

Subpoenas — Under 2013 Amendments to Rule 45, Parties and Their Officers May Not Be Subpoenaed to Travel More Than 100 Miles or Outside Their States of Residence or Business

Havens v. Maritime Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68786 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014): I. Introduction On April 25, 2014, defendant Touch Tel Corporation ("Touch Tel") moved to quash trial subpoenas issued by MCLM to Robert Cooper, its president,…
Continue Reading

RICO Plaintiff Can’t Sue for Injury to 3rd Party—Pro Se Can’t Represent Another—Non-Party Can’t Appeal—Awareness of Fraud Bars Mail Fraud Claim—Vague Allegations ≠ RICO Claim—No FRAP 38 Sanctions for Pro Se for Bad Legal Args

Miller v. Pocono Ranch Lands Prop. Owners Ass’n Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3191 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2014): Pro se appellant Marlene Miller appeals the District Court's order dismissing her third amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures — Failure to Identify Witnesses That Party “May Use” Not Excused by Their Mention in Produced Documents Nor by Reference to One as Knowledgeable in Interrogatory Answers — 26(e) No Defense

Wallace v. USAA Life Gen. Agency, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Nev. 2012): This action involves USAA's denial of Plaintiff's claim for life insurance benefits based on the insurer's contention that Plaintiff's deceased husband's life insurance application contained…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Bad Faith Litigation Abuse vs. “Fraud on the Court” — Bad Faith Essential for Attorneys’ Fees, Not All Inherent Power Sanctions — State of Mind of Individual Employees, Inhouse Counsel Attributable to Entity

Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8746 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2014) (applying Eighth Circuit sanctions law): E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (collectively…
Continue Reading

Hearsay — Uncertain Standard of Review — Business Records “Fraught with Double Hearsay” — Authenticating Witness & Personal Knowledge — Business Duty Requirement for Third-Party Speakers (Good Quotes)

Peak v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9174 (6th Cir. May 16, 2014): Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Peak ("Plaintiff") was injured after the front-end loader tractor he was using to move boulders malfunctioned, causing the boulders to fall on him, …
Continue Reading
Previous250251252253254255256Next

Recent Articles

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

nherent 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?

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

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