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

Arbitration Clause Guaranteeing One Party (Here, Employer) Right to Choose Arbitrator and Imposing Impracticably High Administrative Fees on Claimant Void as Unconscionable — Other Flaws, Too — State Law Not Preempted by FAA

Chavarria vv. Ralphs Grocery Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21959 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013): By completing an employment application with Ralphs, all potential employees agree to be bound by Ralphs' arbitration policy. The application contains an acknowledgment that the…
Continue Reading

§ 1782 Discovery — Courts Guided by the Standards of Rule 26 — Factors for Determining Whether There Is Good Cause to Allow Early Discovery to Determine the Identity of an Unknown Person

In re Ex Parte Application of Bertina Jommi, Petitioner, For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013): Petitioner Bertina Jommi filed an Ex Parte Application For an Order Pursuant…
Continue Reading

Securities — Supreme Court to Revisit Fraud on the Market and Consider Whether Defendant May Rebut Presumption of Reliance at Class Certification by Showing That the Alleged Misrepresentation Did Not Distort the Stock Price

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (U.S. Nov. 15, 2013) (available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-317.htm), granting certiorari: QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether this Court should overrule or substantially modify the holding of Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Where Counsel Files Multiple Suits, Each <100 Plaintiffs, and Doesn't Propose Joint Trial, CAFA Removal Improper — Maybe OK If State Court Sua Sponte Orders Joint Trial — Good Quote re Stretching Opinion’s Reasoning Beyond Its Breaking Point

Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2013): In 2012, one of Appellants' cruise ships, the Costa Concordia, ran aground off the coast of Italy. In the wake of the accident, many of the Costa Concordia's passengers sued…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice — Judicial Proceedings Privilege Protects Lawyers from Liability for Statements Made in and Pertinent to Litigation — Applies to All Causes of Action — Not Limited to Defamation Claims

Hadar v. Pierce, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7376 (1st Dept. Nov. 12, 2013): The first through fourth causes of action are based on the purportedly false statements made in the complaint in a prior Supreme Court action and the …
Continue Reading

The Statute of Limitations for a Criminal Legal Malpractice or Malicious Prosecution Plaintiff Commences Only after All Charges Have Been Disposed of in His or Her Favor — No Claim Lies While Charges Pending

Kanciper v. Lato, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159725 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2013): [T]he Plaintiff's state law causes of actions accrue when the entire underlying action or proceeding is dismissed. Here, because the underlying indictment remained pending until the Appellate Division…
Continue Reading

Securities — § 15(a)(1) of ’34 Act Affords Private Right of Action — Rescission Available under § 29(b) to Stranger to Contract — Privity Inferrable from Cross-References to Other Contracts to Which Plaintiff Was Party

Landegger v. Cohen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159734 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2013): The crux of Plaintiff's claim is predicated on the unregistered broker status of Defendants Cohen and Young, respectively. Because of this status, Plaintiff contends that the securities'…
Continue Reading
Previous269270271272273274275Next

Recent Articles

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

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

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