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

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

Inherent Power Sanctions —Party’s Unfounded Attack on Settlement Agreement, Like Unfounded Attack on Arbitration Award, Is Vexatious — Settlement Agreement Predicated on Confidentiality of Terms Justifies Sealing Order

Seals v. Herzing Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13390 (5th Cir. June 29, 2012): A two-day arbitration hearing was scheduled. Seals proceeded pro se prior to the hearing, but he retained counsel for the hearing itself. On the hearing’s second…
Continue Reading

Court May Appoint Arbitrator under FAA and New York Convention Any Time There Is a “Mechanical Breakdown” in the Arbitrator Selection Process unless an Integral Forum Selection Clause Has Failed

BP Exploration Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15706 (5th Cir. July 30,2012): BP Exploration Libya Limited (“BP”), ExxonMobil Libya Limited (“Exxon”), and Noble North Africa Limited (“Noble”) are entangled in a disagreement over the appointment…
Continue Reading
Previous314315316317318319320Next

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