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

Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause — Like Arbitrability Generally — Is Issue for Court, Even If Other Portions of Contract Are Also Challenged, As Long As Crux of Complaint Is Not Challenge to Contract As a Whole

Smith v. JEM Grp., 737 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 2013): JEM argues that an arbitrator, rather than the district court, should have determined whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable.  JEM argues under Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Is a Dismissal on Grounds of Judicial Estoppel Reviewed De Novo or for Abuse of Discretion? — Circuit Split — Elements of Judicial Estoppel — Application to Administrative Proceedings — Prejudice Not Essential

Lia v. Saporito, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20975 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2013): Plaintiff Don Lia appeals from the dismissal of his claims against defendants Michael Saporito and Jesse Armstead for specific performance, declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive…
Continue Reading

No Bad Faith Required for § 1927 Sanctions in Sixth Circuit — Test Is Whether Lawyer Knew or Should Have Known Position Was Frivolous — No Separate (or Any) Motion Required — Request in Brief for § 1927 Sanctions Suffices

Meathe v. Ret, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22295 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2013) Plaintiff Cullan Meathe appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in this direct shareholder suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, silent fraud, civil…
Continue Reading

Requirements for Case-Ending Sanctions (Fifth Circuit) — Lesser Sanctions Must Be Inadequate — Disregard of Prior Orders Shows Inadequacy, Permits Inference of Willfulness — Due Process Requirements That Sanction Be Just and Tied to Misconduct

Keybank N.A. v. Perkins Rowe Assocs., LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17544 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013): Plaintiff-Appellee KeyBank National Association ("KeyBank") provided Defendants-Appellants, collectively referred to as "Perkins Rowe," with a loan for $170 million to construct a mixed-use…
Continue Reading
Previous265266267268269270271Next

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