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 — District Court’s Use of Equitable Estoppel to Compel Arbitration with Non-Signatory Is Reviewed De Novo — Mere Allegation of Conspiracy Insufficient to Trigger Equitable Estoppel — Intertwining of Claim & Contract Key

In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2013): Appellants Blue Goose Super Market, Inc. (“Blue Goose”), Millennium Operations, Inc. (“Millennium”), and King Cole Foods, Inc. (“King Cole”) all have supply and…
Continue Reading

Authentication of GPS and Google Earth Evidence — No Expert Required — Knowledgeable, Trained Technician Sufficient — No Reversible Error If Authenticating Evidence Follows, Rather Than Precedes, Introduction into Evidence

United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012): An undercover United States Customs Task Force operation involving efforts on land, at sea, and in the air, ended with the arrests of the defendants, Saturnino Tatis-Núñez (“Tatis”), César Hernández-De…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure Must be Provided for Treating Physician — Mere Production of Medical Records Insufficient — Rule 37(c)(1) Factors for Evaluating Substantial Justification and Harmless Error

Carrillo v. B&J Enters., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12435 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013): Plaintiff appears to concede that her expert disclosures do not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). To the extent there is any question, the Court finds that…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice Defendant May Implead Other Law Firms for the Client (and for the Parent Company of the Client) While Simultaneously Asserting a Comparative Negligence Defense against the Client

Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 402 (1st Dept. Jan. 24, 2013): This is a legal malpractice action in which defendant law firm brought third-party claims for contribution against three other law firms based…
Continue Reading

Standards for Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report under Rule 37(c)(1) — Standards for Abuse of Discretion Review — Internally Inconsistent and Unsupported Expert Testimony Excluded

Hunt v. CNH Am. LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2533 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2013): A. Exclusion of Holcomb’s Supplemental Report Hunt contests the District Court’s decision to exclude a supplemental expert report, submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil…
Continue Reading

Diversity of Citizenship — Is a National Bank (N.A.) a Citizen Only of the State Designated in Its Charter or Also “Located” Where It Maintains Its Principal Place of Business? Circuit Split

Taber v. NDEX West, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185642 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2012): On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff Robin Taber (“Plaintiff”) filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants NDEX West, LLC (“NDEX”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”),…
Continue Reading

Even If Witness Providing Expert Testimony Has an Interest in the Outcome That Can Be Characterized As Contingent (Here, a Patent Inventor), That Does Not Render the Expert’s Testimony Inadmissible

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15287 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2013): Boston Scientific next seeks the preclusion of the testimony of Dr. Morton Mower, one of the inventors of the ‘119 patent technology,…
Continue Reading
Previous295296297298299300301Next

Recent Articles

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

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

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