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

Party Resisting Confirmation of Arbitration Award Is Entitled to Judicial Determination of Arbitrability Absent Clear and Unmistakable Evidence That Parties Agreed to Arbitrate Or Submit Issue to Arbitrator

Schneider v. Kingdom of Thailand, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16508 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2012): “The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the ‘question of arbitrability,’ is ‘an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the…
Continue Reading

PIN Text Messages Authenticated for Rule 104(a) Purposes by Affidavit from Service Provider and Distinctive Characteristics, Primarily from Contents — Jury Is Ultimate Decisionmaker under Rule 104(b)

United States v. Kilpatrick, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110166 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2012): The government seeks a preliminary pretrial ruling on the authenticity of relevant text message exchanges pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) and (b). The evidence…
Continue Reading

Counsel’s Improper Influence over Deposition Errata Sheets — Effecting Substantive Changes to Conform Deposition to Complaint — in Order to Push Meritless Case to Trial Warrants § 1927 Sanctions

Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15704 (5th Cir. July 30, 2012): Relator’s counsel also appeals the district court’s award of sanctions under § 1927 in connection with Relator’s retaliation suit. *** Section 1927 sanctions…
Continue Reading

Plaintiff May Not Voluntarily Dismiss Petition to Compel Arbitration — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Does Not Apply — It Is “Rare Case” in which District Judge’s Refusal to Recuse Is Reversed

ISC Holding AG v.- Nobel Biocare Finance AG, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15402 (2d Cir. July 25, 2012): Petitioner-Appellant ISC Holding AG (“ISC”) appeals from a November 23, 2010 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District…
Continue Reading

Presumption of Access to Judicial Records Inapplicable to Those Filed under Seal with a Non-Dispositive Motion, But Daubert Motion Filed with Summary Judgment Motion May Be Dispositive

In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Lit., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15334 (9th Cir. July 25, 2012): The district court presided over four class action cases, each brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs asserted similar…
Continue Reading
Previous313314315316317318319Next

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