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

Expert’s Notes, Outlines, Lists, Letters, Memoranda and Internal Communications with Staff Are Discoverable, Unless They Contain Theories or Mental Impressions of Counsel — 2010 Expert Rules Amendments

Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60739 (D. Colo. April 26, 2013): First, because it is the intention of the rules committee to protect the mental impressions and legal theories of a party’s attorney, not its expert,…
Continue Reading

Affidavits Excluded for Failure to Identify Affiants in Initial or Supplemental Disclosures, Even Though Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal — Factors for Exclusion and for Dismissal Sanctions

Carmody v. K.C. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (8th Cir. April 23, 2013): Sergeant James Carmody, Officer Marcus Davis, and Officer Robert Vivona (officers) appeal the district court’s1 orders (1) striking the officers’ affidavits submitted in…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — Pro Se Litigants Not Entitled to Disobey Two Orders before a Default or Dismissal Can Be Declared — Extrajudicial Rudeness Separately Sanctioned and Forms Part of Basis for Default Dismissal

Maus v. Ennis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): John Ennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant, in part, of a default judgment in favor of David Maus and Mark Ornstein (collectively, the “plaintiffs”)…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Refusal to Give Mandatory Adverse Inference Instruction Is Consistent with Refusal to Grant Default Judgment (or Dismissal) — Permissive Instruction Upheld

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (6th Cir. April 25, 2013): Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s decision to impose a permissive, as opposed to mandatory, adverse inference sanction against the City for destroying “e-mails sent and…
Continue Reading

RICO — Fraudulent Appraisal Sustains Mail Fraud-Based § 1962(c) Claim Alleging Scheme to Defraud Homeowner into Taking Out Unsustainable Mortgage, Leading to Foreclosure and Bankruptcy — Proximate Cause Is Not Same as Sole Cause (Good Quote)

Wallace v. Midwest Fin. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111 (6th Cir. April 23, 2013): This is a subprime mortgage case brought by the borrower, Harold Wallace, against the lender, MortgageIT, Inc. (“MortgageIT”), the mortgage broker, Midwest Financial…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions — No Bad Faith Required for Adverse Inference If Preservation Is Required by Statute or Regulation and Harmed Party Is within Class Protected by That Provision — Even Adverse Inference Insufficient to Avoid Summary Judgment

Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4706 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 8, 2013): Camille Grosdidier has worked in the French to Africa Service of the Voice of America (“VOA”) since 1987, since 1991 as a GS 12.…
Continue Reading

By Bringing Bad Faith Action, Insured Places in Issue the Conduct of Both Sides of Litigation — Rule 68 — If Court Does Not Award Costs, Costs Should Be Excluded in Valuing the Judgment — § 1927 Sanctions on Appeal Though Properly Denied Below

Charyulu v. Calif. Cas. Indem. Exch., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7328 (9th Cir. April 11, 2013): Plaintiff Cindy Charyulu, special administrator of the Estate of Fatu Taputu, appeals the judgment, after a jury trial, entered in favor of the insurance…
Continue Reading

American Pipe Tolls Statute of Limitations for Subsequent Class Action — Not Just Individidual Action — If Prior Class Action Was Disposed of Without Resolution of Class Issues

In re: Vertrue Inc. Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7693 (6th Cir. April 16, 2013): This matter arises from a multidistrict litigation proceeding, encompassing thirteen putative class action suits challenging the sales and marketing practices of…
Continue Reading
Previous289290291292293294295Next

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