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

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

Removal: New York Convention Permits Removal If Case Is “Related to” Arbitration Even If Dispute Is Not Itself Arbitrable — Issue Is Whether Arbitration “Could Conceivably Affect the Outcome of the Case” — Need Not Have Preclusive Effect

Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23281 (8th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012): Doe Run Resources and its affiliates operated a smelting facility in Peru. The facility’s pollution allegedly injured the plaintiffs. A Doe Run associate, Renco,…
Continue Reading

Mandamus as Tool to Challenge Denial of Protection for Confidential Data — Bar Against One Lawyer’s Access Because He/She Is “Competitive Decisionmaker” for Client Not Imputed to Law Firm — Model Rules’ Imputation Rejected

In re Dell Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22155 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2012): This is an unusual case involving whether a bar precluding an attorney from accessing confidential information on the ground that he is a “competitive decisionmaker” must…
Continue Reading

Experts — District Court’s Failure to Make Gateway Determinations of Relevance and Reliability Mandates Reversal — “The Decision To Admit Or Exclude Expert Testimony Is Often The Difference Between Winning And Losing A Case” (Good Quotes)

Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23528 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2012): Compliance with Rule 702 is gauged by the district court’s assessment of the reliability of the proffered expert testimony. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. Specifically,…
Continue Reading

Parties Planning to Give Expert Testimony Must File Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure — Lack of Candor in Retained Expert’s Report Is Grounds for Exclusion under Daubert and Kumho

Martinez v. Garcia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158220 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2012) :Martinez’s Dkt. No. 158 seeks to bar the two opinion witnesses designated by the “Medical Defendants,” Dr. Parthasarathai Ghosh and LaTonya Williams (“Williams”). Those proposed witnesses comprise…
Continue Reading

Prior Complaint for Same Conduct Inadmissible under Rule 404(b) Absent Prior Admission of Liability or Evidence the Acts Alleged Were Committed — Irrelevant on Intent or Awareness Conduct Was Unlawful

United States v. Bailey, 696 F.3d 794 (9th Cir 2012): Bailey was the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gateway, a small, public company involved in selling health and dietary supplements. In 2002, Bailey…
Continue Reading
Previous303304305306307308309Next

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