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

§ 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

Removal — Sanctions — Neither Rule 11 Nor Rule 60 Nor the Inherent Power of the Court Permits Striking a Remand Order and Retrieving a Case from State Court to Sanction Misrepresentations of Counsel in Obtaining Remand

Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8143 (4th Cir. April 30, 2014) (2-1 decision): The federal removal statute immunizes from review — appellate or otherwise — any order remanding to state court a case removed to federal …
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Every Level of Hearsay Must Be Addressed — Emails Received by Reporter from Counsel to a Party, While Business Records of Reporter, Are Hearsay as to Counsel’s Statements (Admissions Not Addressed)

Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51287 (D. Neb. April 14, 2014): This matter is before the Court on the motion of the counterclaim plaintiff Greater Omaha Packing Company, Inc., (Filing No. 434)…
Continue Reading

Hearsay Exemption of Rule 801(d)(2)(A) (An Opposing Party’s Statement) Requires Only That Statement Be Offered against a Party Opponent — Rule 804(b)(3) (Statement Against Interest) Distinguished

Matter of Romanowski, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 763 (Mich. Ct. App. April 22, 2014): In these consolidated appeals, respondents, the adoptive parents of the involved minor child, appeal as of right from a circuit court dispositional order placing the child…
Continue Reading
Previous252253254255256257258Next

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