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

Facebook/Social Media Authentication — West Virginia Adopts Liberal, Circumstantial Evidence Approach — Testimony from Conversant, Witness to Party Sending or Receiving, or Distinctive Characteristics Sufficient

State v. Benny W., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 487 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. of App. Oct. 18, 2019): This appeal was brought by Benny W. (hereinafter "Petitioner") from the April 4, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County…
Continue Reading

RICO: Separate Roles Performed in Concert ≠ Enterprise — Must Factually Allege Structural Features Like Common Purpose, Relationship & Longevity Needed to Pursue Enterprise’s Purpose — Conclusory Allegations Insufficient

Sheikh v. Wheeler, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31093 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2019) (unpublished): Zafar Sheikh obtained a loan to purchase a supermarket. He fell behind with the mortgage payments, and the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. He then filed suit,…
Continue Reading

Civil Contempt Sanction of $1,000/Day until Discovery Order Honored — Disc’y per Rules 34(a), 45 & in Ch. 15 Bkcy Case Not Limited to Docs in U.S. — Issue Is Practical Ability to Obtain Them (“Control”) — Factors for Contempt & Coercive Sanction

In re Markus, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3276, 2019 WL 5257902 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Oct. 16, 2019): On October 8, 2019, the Court entered an Order imposing sanctions on Victor A. Worms, Esq. (“Worms”), counsel of record for the foreign debtor …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: District Judge’s Review Magistrate of Judge’s Decision Is for Abuse of Discretion — 5-Factor 37(c)(1) Test (6th Cir.) — Can Timely Production (within Fact Discovery Period) Still Be Sanctionably Late? (Footnote 7)

Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2019 WL 4894348 (6th Cir. Oct. 4, 2019): *1 This case is about promises made, promises broken, and disclaimers signed. And it is a reminder that not every broken promise occasions a legal remedy.…
Continue Reading

Experts: Rule 37(c)(1) Discretion Inapt If Late-Disclosing Party Fails to Show Good Cause to Modify Protective Order Deadline for Expert Reports, Necessitating Exclusion — 2-1 Eighth Circuit Decision

Petrone v. Werner Enters., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30344 (8th Cir. Oct. 10, 2019): Philip Petrone and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a class action against Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Drivers Management, LLC (collectively, Defendants) arising out of an eight-week student-driver …
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication: Photos on Social Media Subject Only to Traditional [Fair-and-Accurate-Portrayal] Test Where Sole Proffer Is the Images, Not As Part of a Social Media Statement by the Ostensible Page Owner

United States v. Vázquez-Soto, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29495 (1st Cir. Oct. 1, 2019): After a six-day trial and four days of deliberation, a jury convicted appellant Rodolfo Vázquez-Soto on two counts of making false statements and one count of …
Continue Reading

Forum Selection Clause Requiring Litigation in Federal Court Unless Court Lacks Jurisdiction Trumps Forum Defendant Rule, Which Is Procedural & Doesn’t Affect Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Capital Rest. Grp., LLC v. Burger King Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176821 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2019): This matter is before the Court on Defendant Burger King Corporation's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) The Plaintiff filed a response…
Continue Reading
Previous51525354555657Next

Recent Articles

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

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

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