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

Stock Price Data Inadmissible Where Price Drop May be Attributable to Irrelevant Causes — Rejecting Stipulations — Waiver v. Forfeiture of Objection & Plain Error Review — Double Hearsay

From United States v. Ferguson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15811 (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2011): Materiality is an element of most of the charged offenses. There must have been a “substantial likelihood” that the LPT-related misstatements would be important to…
Continue Reading

Motion to Recuse Not Only Members of Panel that Ruled against Her but also All Other, Unnamed Circuit Judges “Who Share Their Feelings” Not Only Frivolous but Appears to Comprise Malicious Disparagement of Court

From Gallop v. Cheney, 645 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2011) (denying rehearing of opinion excerpted in our post of June 7, 2011): While Gallop’s petition for rehearing was pending before this Court, she moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144…
Continue Reading

Literal Truth No Defense to Rule 11 Sanctions If Misleading — Reliance on Dubious Computerized Data from client’s Third-Party Vendor ≠ Reasonable Inquiry — Reliance on Client: Need Not Assume Duplicity — Uninvolved Senior Partner Not Culpable

From In re Taylor, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17651 (3d Cir. Aug. 24, 2011): This case is an unfortunate example of the ways in which overreliance on computerized processes in a high-volume practice, as well as a failure on the…
Continue Reading

Amended Complaint that Fundamentally Changes the Shape of a Case Revives Defendant’s Right to Compel Arbitration — Here, Vastly Augmented Class Definition

From Krinsk v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18521 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011): Defendant SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”) appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel plaintiff Sara Krinsk to submit her claims to arbitration pursuant…
Continue Reading

Responsive Internet Pages that Party Intends to Introduce Must Be Produced in Discovery — No Defense that They Haven’t Been Printed Out — Someone Other Than Trial Counsel Should Authenticate — Non-Hearsay Uses of Internet Evidence

From Firehouse Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Scurmont LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89727 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2011): I: Internet Printouts of Alleged Third Party Use Firehouse seeks to preclude Calli Baker’s from introducing a substantial number of printouts from various…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Applying Vaden to Look Through a Freestanding FAA Petition Where No Complaint Exists — State Law Discovery Sanction Striking Arbitration Clause Precludes Motion to Compel in Federal Court

From Community State Bank v. Strong, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17767 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2011): This resilient case has arrived back in our Court after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 129 S.…
Continue Reading

Disqualification of Opposing Lawyer, Who Was a Key Participant in Failed Contract Negotiations, Denied — No Right to Call Opposing Counsel to Corroborate Own Witnesses’ Testimony

From Lincoln Provision, Inc., v.Aron Puretz, PMP LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86475 (D. Neb. Aug. 4, 2011): The Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, David Domina, on the theory that Domina is a necessary witness in this action***. Defendants…
Continue Reading
Previous347348349350351352353Next

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