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

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to be Sanctionable — § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms — District Court May Sanction Frivolous Appeals That Are Withdrawn — Entire Cost of Sanctions Motion Awardable Even If Denied in Part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

RICO — Corporate Defendant Is Not Distinct from Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Where Latter Is the Alleged Enterprise, Absent Allegations of Functional Separation between the Two

ISystems v. Spark Networks, Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6197 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 2012): Spark Networks, the owner of the “jdate.com” web domain, won the rights to ISystems’s “jdate.net” domain name in arbitration. ISystems then brought suit against Spark…
Continue Reading
Previous326327328329330331332Next

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