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

R. 11 Sanctions: Due Process—Flexible Notice, Substantial Compliance — OK to Issue OSC in 1 of 15 Cases & Dismiss All — Prisoner’s Knowledge of Own Conduct = Notice — Order Must State Specific Basis of Sxs — Types of Vexatious Lit Injn

Cobble v. U.S. Government, 816 Fed.Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Petitioner/Appellant Daniel Cobble1 (“Cobble”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice, as a sanction, his pro se actions, filed pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation: Inherent Power—Fraud on Court Requires Clear & Convincing Evidence — Factors — Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Consideration of Less Drastic Sanctions — [No Reference to 37(e), Which Governs]

ComLab Corp. v. Tire, 815 Fed.Appx. 597 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant ComLab, Corp. (“ComLab”) brings this consolidated appeal challenging two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first appeal…
Continue Reading

Good Faith Reliance on Information Received from In-House Counsel, Verified After Challenge Raised, Defeats Rule 11 Sanction Sought for Misrepresenting Corporate Status

Huang v. Mediatek USA, Inc.815 Fed.Appx. 521 (Fed. Cir. 2020): This appeal arises from an action for patent infringement. Xiaohua Huang accused MediaTek USA Inc., formerly known as Nephos Inc., of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,744,653 and…
Continue Reading

Appeals: FRAP 38 Sanctions Apt If Appeal Is Wholly without Merit, There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success — § 1927 Sanctions If Lawyer Reasonably Should Have Known Claim Is Frivolous

T.V.S. v. Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25457 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020): ¶¶ ORDER Akron City School District Board of Education, Akron City School District, and its employees David W. James, Philomena Vincente,…
Continue Reading

Bankruptcy: Presumptive Sanction for Breach of § 329(a) (Fee Agreements) Is Loss of All Fees —Not Least Severe Sanction — Rule 11 Inapt — Mitigating Circumstances Must Be Compelling

SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25882 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020): Attorney Ruston Welch received $348,404.41 in fees for representing David and Terry Stewart in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. This appeal …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Ethical Rule Violations: Insulting Counsel, Mediator, Court Rptr; Physical Threat — Reprimand As Serious SX — Bad Faith Needed Only for Fees — Due Process: Notice of Type, Severity of Possible SX Critical

Golden v. Clear Advantage Mktg., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88130,2020 WL 2516671 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 30, 2020): *1 The issues now before the court present a pure credibility dispute, although not concerning the merits of the underlying copyright and…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions: Preclusion for Failing to Preserve Most Data-Filled Form of ESI — Alt’ve Not Reasonably Usable — Preclusion ¹ Dispositive (MJ) If Other Evid. Exists — 2d Cir. Disc’y Sxs Factors (Pro, Con)—Client Sx’d for Atty Error

Joint Stock Co. "Channel One Russ. Worldwide" v. Infomir LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63099 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020): Plaintiffs, a group of Russian television broadcasters, commenced this action on February 19, 2016 against various Defendants, [*3]  including Infomir LLC …
Continue Reading
Previous31323334353637Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

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