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

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

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
Previous251252253254255256257Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

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

Inherent 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?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice