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

Fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3) — Elements — Possible Circuit Split as to Standard of Review — No Fraud on the Court for Failure to Advise Judge of Side Settlement When Presenting Consent Judgment for Approval

General Medicine, PC v. Horizon/CMS Health Care Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7186 (6th Cir. April 10, 2012): This matter began as a contract dispute between General and Horizon in the Eastern District of Michigan…. HealthSouth acquired Horizon in 1997…
Continue Reading

Communications with Unretained Experts, Unprotected by Rule 26(b)(B)(4)(C), Are Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege — Any Exceptions? — Affiants on Preliminary Injunction = Testifying Experts

Graco, Inc. v. PMC Global, Inc., 2011 WL 666056 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2011): In connection with Graco’s motion for a preliminary injunction *** and opposition to PMC’s motion for summary judgment ***, Graco submitted [numerous] affidavits…. The Court notes that…
Continue Reading

First-Filed Rule Bars Federal Declaratory Judgment Action Filed after State Court DJ Action — Brillhart-Wilton Appears to Be Decisive— Unclear Whether Court Would Apply First-Filed Rule in Non-DJ Context, Where Circuits Are Split

Catlin Specialty Ins. Co. v. Plato Constr. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36494 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2012): a. General Applicability of the First-Filed Rule to Co-pending Parallel State and Federal Litigations Under the First-Filed Rule, “‘[i]n all cases of federal…
Continue Reading

Reformation Due to Mutual Mistake Requires “Exceptional Circumstances” Where Sophisticated Parties Entered Detailed, Heavily-Negotiated Agreement — No Unjust Enrichment If Written Contract

Simkin v. Blank, 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. April 3, 2012): The parties, represented by counsel, spent two years negotiating a detailed 22-page settlement agreement, executed in June 2006. In August 2006, the settlement agreement was incorporated, but…
Continue Reading

Bad Faith Conduct Need Not Cause Harm to be Sanctionable — § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms — District Court May Sanction Frivolous Appeals That Are Withdrawn — Entire Cost of Sanctions Motion Awardable Even If Denied in Part

Enmon v. Arnold & Itkin LLP, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6986 (2d Cir. April 6, 2012): The sanctions imposed on Arnold & Itkin arose out of Michael Enmon’s attempts to obtain a subordinated loan from Prospect to complete his acquisition…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Failure to Prove Evidence Ever Existed Precludes Sanction — Corporate “Best Practices” Do Not Represent Policy That, If Violated, Might Be Deemed Spoliative

Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.., 670 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2012): Plaintiff-appellant Armando Gomez, a Colombian national, sued defendant-appellee Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., after he slipped and fell while shopping.*** On June 19, 2007, the plaintiff entered…
Continue Reading

Notice of Appeal from Order Imposing Monetary Sanction Must be Filed within 30 Days — No “Separate Document” for Judgment Need be Entered under Rule 58 — Rule 54(d)(2)(E) Inapplicable — Nonmonetary Sanction?

Feldman v. Olin Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3578 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012): The appellants are lawyers who represented the plaintiff in this employment discrimination case. One of the defendants, Global Brass and Copper, Inc., moved the district court…
Continue Reading
Previous325326327328329330331Next

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