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

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

Telephone Call to Number Assigned to Business Is Self-Authenticating, But Not to Number Posted on Extinct Website —- Hearsay Excludable on Summary Judgment — Foreign Business Website Not Self-Authenticating under Rule 902(5)

Hansen v. PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2523 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013): Plaintiffs-Appellants Theodore L. Hansen, Interstate Energy Corp. and Triple M, L.L.C., appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee PT. Bank…
Continue Reading

Examined Party (i.e., Plaintiff) Must Show Exceptional Circumstances to Depose Non-Testifying Physician Who Performs Rule 35 Examination (Caselaw Split) — Mere Fact a Testifying Physician References Non-Testifier’s Report Not Enough

Downs v. River City Group, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14018 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2013): Rule 35 governs physical and mental examinations in cases where a party’s physical or mental condition is at issue. This rule provides that the…
Continue Reading
Previous296297298299300301302Next

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