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 / Sarbanes-Oxley — Federal Statute That Permits Only a Prevailing Plaintiff to Recover Attorney Fees Does Not Implicitly Bar a Defendant from Recovering Fees Authorized Elsewhere

Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8477 (11th Cir. May 6, 2014): Sarbanes-Oxley's fee provision states that "[a]n employee prevailing in any action under [the statute] shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication Based on Facial Characteristics of the Documents Plus Affidavit from One Conversant — Use of Rule 59(e) or 60 as Vehicle for a “Motion for Reconsideration” — Good Quotes

ATS Int’l Servs., Inc. v. Kousa Int’l, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60796 (D. Md. May 1, 2014): This case arises out of a series of shipping contracts between ATS International Services, Inc. ("ATS") and Kousa International, LLC ("Kousa"). ATS…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Imposed in Action 1 for Filing Action 2 Based on Same Occurrences, Despite the Fact that Action 2 Was Never Served and the Court Lacked Personal Jurisdiction over Certain of the Action 2 Defendants

Thurmond v. Wayne Cnty’s Sheriff Dep’t, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8190 (6th Cir. April 28, 2014); On remand, the district court re-imposed the sanction of attorney's  [*27] fees in the amount of $4,080 on Thurmond's counsel. The court based the …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions—Suspension of Deadlines for Settlement Talks Doesn’t Excuse Disregard of Them after Talks Fail, Even If Order Not Expressly Reinstated—Rule 26(e) Irrelevant to 16(f) Violation—Unclean Hands Inapt If Sanctions Sua Sponte

Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079 (3d Cir. April 29, 2014): During a Title VII action, the District Court imposed a monetary sanction against Plaintiffs' counsel … under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Litigation Becomes Reasonably Foreseeable to a Party No Later Than the Date Asserted for Work Product — Circumstantial Indicia of Relevance of Lost Documents

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7392 (Fed. Cir. April 21, 2014): This patent infringement suit concerns the antihypertension drug having the brand name Tarka®. Tarka® is a combination of two active ingredients into…
Continue Reading

RICO & Twombly—If Parties Enter Facially Legitimate Transactions and Operate for Years Thereunder, “Significant…Factual Specificity” Needed to Allege Fraud Plausibly—Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence from Nonpartisan Research Entity

Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8579 (9th Cir. May 7, 2014): We consider whether Plaintiffs-Appellants have pleaded facts sufficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b) to support a …
Continue Reading

Removal — Bad Faith Prerequisite for Sua Sponte Sanctions in 2d Circuit Satisfied by Actual Knowledge Removal Requirements Unsatisfied — Improper Purpose Not Required — Benefit to Client and Correctability of Act Irrelevant

Cardona v. Mohabir, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62637 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014): Court-initiated sanctions are expressly contemplated by Rule 11(c)(3) yet, except in an unusual case such as this that is premised upon an admission, the subjective bad faith standard …
Continue Reading
Previous251252253254255256257Next

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