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

Legal Malpractice and Choice of Law — A State Has a Paramount Interest in Regulating Lawyers Practicing within Its Borders — Elements of Judicial Estoppel (Majority Rule) and Law of the Case Doctrine — Law Governing Claim Governs Affirmative Defenses

Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Shapiro, 857 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2012): B. Choice of Law Issues The Receiver argues that the claims against the Law Firm Defendants are controlled by the laws of their respective domiciles, such…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction Extends to Legal Malpractice Claim That Requires Plaintiff to Prove That No Violation of the Federal Securities Laws Occurred in Order to Establish Causation

Reserve Mgmt. Co. v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137682 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012): Plaintiff RMCI served as the investment advisor for the Reserve Primary Fund (“the Fund”), a money market fund that, prior to September…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Negligence Suffices for, But Does Not Require, Adverse Inference in Sixth Circuit — When Sanctions on a Party May Be Apt for Third Party Spoliation = Case-by-Case Determination

Adkins v. Wolever, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): This appeal concerns whether Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Adkins was entitled to an adverse inference instruction because video and photographic evidence relating to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive…
Continue Reading

Experts — While Conclusory Application of Daubert Is Insufficient to Trigger Deferential Appellate Review, Brief but Informed Application OK — “A Daubert Inquiry Is Not Designed to Have the District Judge Take the Place of the Jury”—Good Quotes

Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012): This appeal arose from an accident at a steel rolling mill that permanently disabled one of the workers there. The circumstances of that accident were unusual. Industrial grease was propelled…
Continue Reading
Previous306307308309310311312Next

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