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

New York Bars Legal Malpractice-Based Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress unless Defendant Unreasonably Threatened Plaintiff’s Physical Safety

Morson v. Kreindler & Kreindler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112310 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011): Two of plaintiff’s claims, Count V: negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NEID”), and Count VI: intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), allege injuries that are not…
Continue Reading

In Action Alleging Misrepresentation Concerning Product, Problems and Complaints of Third Parties Prior to Contract of Sale Are Admissible to Show State of Mind of Defendant — High Standard for Success on Motion in Limine to Exclude

From Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128897 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2011): SK and Epic are both engaged in the business of developing video games. On May 10, 2005, SK entered into a license agreement…
Continue Reading

Treating Physician Must Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Expert Report If Opinions Extend Beyond Those Formed during Treatment — Presumptively Mandatory Sanctions — Particularly Broad Discretion as to Type

From Ghiorzi v Whitewater Pools & Spas, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125329 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011): Applying Rule 37(a)(3) and (c)(1) compels the conclusion that an expert’s trial testimony should be automatically excluded if a party fails to…
Continue Reading

Breadth of Arbitral Immunity — Trivial Differences between Rule 11 Motion as Served and as Filed Do Not Vitiate It or Require Second Safe Harbor Period — Permitted Inference vs. Unpermitted Speculation

Bletas v. Deluca, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133132 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011): Pro se plaintiffs … (collectively, the “former franchisees”) former franchisees of Subway International B.V. (“SIBV”) who operated sandwich shops in Greece, and plaintiff [X], a Greek attorney who…
Continue Reading
Previous339340341342343344345Next

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