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

Sanctions — Improper Coaching of Witnesses — Use of Ethical Rules as Standard of Conduct — Reputational Injury Confers Article III Standing to Appeal Even After Monetary Sanctions Paid —Intentional Failure to Prevent Client from Intentionally Dele

From Ibarra v. Baker, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16753 (5th Cir. July 28, 2009): Mary Baker, Scott Durfee, and Frank Sanders represented Harris County, Texas, and several of its law enforcement officers in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The…
Continue Reading

Civil Contempt Standards — Order Directed at Non-Party Corporate Employer and Party Employees — Contempt for Failure to Apprise Supervisors of Order and Obtain Corporate Enforcement — Good Faith and Substantial Compliance No Defense to Contempt

From Roslies-Perez v. Superior Forestry Serv., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65112 (M.D. Tenn. July 28, 2009): Plaintiffs, temporary foreign guestworkers with H-2B visas, filed this action as a collective action against the Defendants: Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and several…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Common Interest (Joint Defense) Doctrine — New York vs. Federal Law — Contract as Basis of Common Legal Interest — Lawyer Communications with Non-Client Protected — Oral vs. Written Common Interest Agreement

From HSH Nordbank AG v. Swerdlow, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63711 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009): A. Overview of Attorney-Client Privilege Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel where such communications are made for…
Continue Reading

Counsel’s Undisclosed Change of Flight Plans, Requiring Opponent to Split Deposition into Two Days, Constitutes “Impeding, Delaying, or Frustrating” Deposition within Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2), Triggering Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

From Campos v. MTD Prods., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63846 (M.D. Tenn. July 24, 2009): While the record does not indicate that [defense counsel] acted intentionally or maliciously …, he was careless and discourteous. Most notably, when his plans…
Continue Reading
Previous424425426427428429430Next

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

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?

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