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

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

Sec’y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025): ORDER* Having reviewed the parties’ responses to the February 22, 2024 order to show cause (Dkt. No. 37),1 the court hereby imposes…
Continue Reading

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Cooper v. US Dominion, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32883, 2023 WL 8613526 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Plaintiffs Jennifer Cooper, Eugene Dixon, Francis Cizmar, Anna Pennala, Kathleen Daavettila, Cynthia Brunell, Karyn Chopjian, and…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

Smith v. Devine, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1118 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025): Appellants Ronald C. Devine; Brenda S. Devine; the Randall Devine 2010 Irrevocable Trust; the Christopher Devine 2010 Irrevocable Trust; the Benjamin Devine 2010 Irrevocable Trust; BRC Loans, …
Continue Reading

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

Government App Solutions, Inc. v. City of New Haven, 2024 WL 1299993 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Government App Solutions appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing its lawsuit bringing claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt…
Continue Reading

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Boudette v. Oskerson, 2024 WL 1342613 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff Daniel Boudette appeals from the district court’s order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, alternatively, for…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 96 F.4th 202 (2d Cir. 2024): Five former customers (“Plaintiffs”) of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (“Peregrine”), the defunct futures commission merchant, appeal the dismissal of their putative class action by the United States District…
Continue Reading

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

D&T Partners, L.L.C. v. Baymark Partners Mgmt., LLC, 94 F.4th 198 (5th Cir. 2024): A group of individuals allegedly sought to steal the assets and trade secrets of an e-commerce company. They did so with shell entities, corrupt lending practices,…
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

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