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

Speaking Objections at Deposition Sanctioned under Rule 30(d) — Excessive Number of Unnecessary Objections as Sanctionable Even If None Is Argumentative or Suggestive

From Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14661 (8th Cir. July 19, 2010): Once the deposition started, Harter continually made argumentative and suggestive objections. He also engaged in private and off-the-record conversations with his client, answered…
Continue Reading

Filing of Amended Complaint Does Not Permit Defendant to Amend Counterclaims as of Right to Add Claims Unrelated to the Amendment — 2009 Amendments to Rule 15 and Deletion of Rule 13(f) Explained — 3 Extra Days for Electronic Service

From UPEK, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76807 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2010): UPEK contends that AuthenTec’s entitlement to amend its counterclaims as of right ended twenty-four days after UPEK filed its answer to the counterclaims. UPEK…
Continue Reading

Local Controversy Exception of CAFA May Be Proved “Practically” — Wide Discretion Accorded Trial Court to Determine Evidence — No Need for Exhaustive Discovery

From Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund “A” v. CVS Caremark Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73459 (D. Minn. July 19, 2010): The pharmacies suggest the Class Action Fairness Act (the “Fairness Act”) grants subject matter jurisdiction because…
Continue Reading

Ability to Pay and Safe Harbor Irrelevant to § 1927 Sanctions — Facial Unconstitutionality of § 1927 Waived when Not Asserted in Challenge to Sanctionability of Conduct — Circuit Panel Bound by Prior Panel Precedent

From Roth v. Spruell, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15112 (10th Cir. July 22, 2010): [On a prior appeal in this case abbreviated Roth II], we considered whether defendants had followed the procedures outlined in Rule 11. Because defendants had not…
Continue Reading
Previous387388389390391392393Next

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