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

Six Months’ of Litigation Insufficient to Forfeit Right to Arbitrate, with Decent Excuse — How Little Is Required to Prove “Interstate Commerce” Triggering FAA — State Choice of Law Clause Does Not Trump FAA

Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24447 (4th Cir Nov. 28, 2012): Rota-McLarty filed a putative class action in state court against Santander on March 9, 2010, alleging violations of various Maryland consumer protection laws for…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Reversed Where Inference of Bad Faith Drawn in Part from Conduct of Others — “[O]nly Conduct Explicitly Referred to in the Instrument Providing Notice Is Sanctionable”

Cameron Int’l Trading Co. v. Hawk Importers, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22294 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2012): Movants J. Curtis Edmondson and Scott D. Frendel (collectively “movants”), defendants’ counsel in this matter, appeal from a January 18, 2011, memorandum…
Continue Reading

Wilton Abstention — Although Court Has Discretion to Abstain If Federal Plaintiff Seeks Only Declaratory Relief, There Is a 5-Way Circuit Split If Complaint Seeks Both Coercive (Damages, Injunction) and Declaratory Relief

Rolon v. Univision TV Group, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141019 (D. P.R. Sept 27, 2012): Univision also argues that this Court has discretion to abstain under Wilton v. Seven Falls, 515 U.S. 277 (1995), because Plaintiffs request declaratory relief.…
Continue Reading

Imposition of Vexatious Litigant Sanctions in Prior Case, and Earlier Judge’s Warning That Future Harassing Litigation Would Be Sanctioned, Does Not Excuse Lack of Notice Before Imposing Sanctions for New Conduct in New Case — Due Process Denied

Truong v. Nguyen, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23827 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2012) (note: citation subject to change when headnotes added by LEXIS): Here, the district court did not provide adequate notice to Truong prior to imposing either leave-to-file or…
Continue Reading

Work Product Protects Consulting Expert Even If Investigation in Part for Business Reasons “Unless the Documents Would Have Been Created in Essentially Similar Form Irrespective of the Litigation” — Factors Weighing Against Discovery

Spirit Master Funding, LLC v. Pike Nurseries Acquisition, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165334 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2012): B. Dual Purpose: Anticipation of Litigation vs. Ordinary Course of Business Pike asserts that the documents at issue here, i.e. communications…
Continue Reading

Expert Whose Report Is Attached to and Incorporated in Earlier Iteration of Complaint Is Subject to Deposition Even If Not Identified as Testifying Expert

In re iPhone, iPad App. Consumer Privacy Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166711 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012): In this multi-district consolidated class action suit, Plaintiffs Isabella and Alejandro Capiro (“Capiros”) seek a protective order to prevent Defendant Apple, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Due Process Notice Requirement Unsatisfied Where Court Relied on Warnings and Sanctions Imposed in Earlier Case Because Earlier Judge Did Not Deal with the Specific Conduct in the Current Case

Truong v. Nguyen, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23827 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2012): “Due process requires that courts provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing any kind of sanctions.” Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194…
Continue Reading

Case Removable Because It “Relates to” Arbitration Is Not Necessarily “Referable” to Arbitration — Binding Non-Signatories to Arbitration — Significance of Whether Signatory or Non-Signatory Moving to Compel

Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23281 (8th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012) (note: The facts of this case are excerpted in our November 21, 2012 posting) Doe Run argues that the district court erred by denying…
Continue Reading
Previous303304305306307308309Next

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