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

Non-Expert Historian Testimony — Non-Expert Head of Organization Permitted to Testify as to Centuries-Old History of Organization — Daubert in Bench Trials: Limited But Not Non-Existent Role — Good Quotes

Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order vs. Florida Priory of the nights Hospitallers, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19104 (11th Cir. Sept. 11, 2012): Plaintiff-Appellant Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (Plaintiff Order) is a…
Continue Reading

RICO — Statute of Limitations Accrues When Plaintiff Is on Inquiry Notice of Its Injury — Merck Limited to Securities Cases — Presumption Supreme Court Does Not Overrule Itself Sub Silentio — Elements of Fraudulent Concealment

Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20758 (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2012): For wine, timing is critical. The same is true for causes of action.*** The essence of Koch’s allegations against Christie’s is that Christie’s promoted as…
Continue Reading

Coverage Action Involving Lloyd’s May Form CAFA Class Action — Prior Judicial Reticence Overridden by CAFA — Defect in Subject Matter Jurisdiction, when Cured, Relates Back to Beginning of Action — All Prior Rulings Restored to Vitality

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141798 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012) (Preska, Ch. J.): Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Underwriters”), Aspen Insurance UK Ltd. (“Aspen”), and Arch Insurance Company (Europe)…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment — Failure to Document Conclusory Denial of Statement of Uncontested Fact = Admission — Causation in Legal Malpractice Action, and the Role of Expert Testimony

Joseph DelGreco & Co. v. DLA Piper LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142017 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012) (Engelmayer, J.): Defendant DLA Piper LLP (“DLA”), a law firm, moves for summary judgment against the Complaint of plaintiffs Joseph DelGreco and DelGreco…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and Tax Protestors (or Others Filing Suit in the Face of Unambiguous Law) — “Plaintiffs May Disagree with the State of the Law, But Rule 11 Prohibits Them from Filing Fictional Claims to Protest It”

United States v. Vallone, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20308 (7th Cir. Sept. 28, 2012): At the conclusion of an eleven week trial, a jury convicted defendants *** of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the functions…
Continue Reading

Damages Opinion Based on “Nascent Company’s” Business Plan Excluded Where Expert Didn’t Know Who Prepared Plan or Its Assumptions — That Plan Was Admitted at Trial Does Not Preclude Exclusion of Opinion under Rule 702, Even If Rule 703 Satisfiied

ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20342 (3d Cir. Sept. 28, 2012): 2. Expert Testimony on Damages In their cross-appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in excluding DeRamus’s testimony on the issue of damages.…
Continue Reading
Previous308309310311312313314Next

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