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

Plaintiff Who Voluntarily Dismisses Action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) May Have No Right to Relief under 60(b) — Tactical Decision Based on Misinterpretation of Rules Is Not Inadvertent or Type of Mistake 60(b) Addresses

From Nelson v. Napolitano, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19033 (7th Cir. Sept. 15, 2011): Nelson, Decatur, Lawson and Carter were Federal Air Marshals. They charged DHS with race- and age-based discrimination, as well as retaliation against certain of the plaintiffs…
Continue Reading

No Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists over Declaratory Judgment Brought by One Private Party against Another That Stands in the Shoes of a Public Official

Loyd’s Aviation, Inc. v. Center for Environmental Health, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121134 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011): Plaintiffs are a group of small businesses that distribute lead-containing aviation fuel (“Avgas”) to air carriers and other aircraft operators at airports…
Continue Reading

Court Generally Should Stay Action on Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration, Not Dismiss It — Judicially-Created Exception If Arbitration Will Clearly Resolve All Issues

From Green v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., 2011 WL 3890326 (8th Cir. Sept. 6, 2011): Mack Green and other current or former shuttle bus drivers at the Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (collectively Green) brought suit against SuperShuttle International, Inc., SuperShuttle Franchise…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Failing to Return Confidential Information as Required by Settlement Agreement and in Violation of Court Order — Jurisdiction to Sanction via Subpoena under Rule 45

Johnson v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20868 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011): This matter arises from an attorney’s improper retention of confidential materials after settlement of a case in a Texas state court. The appellant, Wesley…
Continue Reading
Previous342343344345346347348Next

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