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

Notice of Appeal from Judgment Encompasses All Prior Rulings and Orders Where Appellant Does Not Designate Specific Determinations Only — Reference to One Order Does Not Preclude Appeal from Others

From Bentkowski v. Scene Magazine, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7912 (6th Cir. April 19, 2011): Bentkowski claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery and by striking his…
Continue Reading

Sua Sponte Sanctions Under Rule 11 May Not Include an Award of Attorneys’ Fees to Opposing Counsel — Notice of Potential Rule 11 Sanctions ≠ Due Process Notice of Potential Inherent Power Sanctions

From Wright v. CompGeeks.com, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9133 (10th Cir. May 4, 2011): “The relevant section of Rule 11 states that a ‘sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on…
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Newspaper Articles Taken from Internet Sufficiently Authenticated by Distinctive Newspaper and Website Designs, Dates of Publication, Page Numbers, and Web Addresses

From Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50245 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2011): ***Plaintiff has submitted a number of newspaper articles in support of his defamation claim…. Defendants object to these articles on grounds of relevance,…
Continue Reading

Primary Jurisdiction — Limited to Cases of First Impression or “Particularly Complicated” Issue Committed by Congress to Agency — Not Designed for Court to Obtain Agency’s “Expert Advice”

From Robinson v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40107 (April 13, 2011): The primary jurisdiction doctrine is applicable only if a claim “requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue that Congress…
Continue Reading

Alien Tort Statute (ATS / ATCA) Confers Jurisdiction for Torts Committed Both Inside and Outside of the United States — Case Law Split as to Torts Committed Inside U.S.

From Magnifico v. Villanueva, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45509 (S.D. Fla. April 20, 2011): Plaintiffs, citizens of the Philippines, seek damages from the defendants based on allegations of forced labor and human trafficking in addition to violations of both federal…
Continue Reading

Failure to File 60(b) Motion within 28 Days of Judgment to Toll Date for Filing Notice of Appeal Precludes Appellate Jurisdiction — Discovery Sanctions Motions Are Inextricably Intertwined with Merits and Toll Time to Appeal from Judgment

From Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7980 (2d Cir. April 19, 2011): This Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over Johnson’s appeal from the district court’s February 19, 2010 judgment and order dismissing his complaint and…
Continue Reading

When Treating Physician Must Issue 26(a)(2)(B) Expert Report — Opinions Not Formed in the Course of Treatment and Based on Additional Materials — First Impression Decision Not Applied Retroactively

From Goodman v. Staples, the Office Superstore, LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8979 (9th Cir. May 3, 2011): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires a party to timely disclose a written report of a witness “if the witness is…
Continue Reading
Previous358359360361362363364Next

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