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 — Gov’t Counsel’s Secretly Reading Inmates’ Communications with Counsel, Even after Bar Ethics Counsel Advised Stopping and Alerting Court, Violates Inherent Power and §1927 — “When in Doubt, Ask the Court” (Good Quote)

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) (Note: The 1992 adn 1994ABA opinions cited in this decision have since been replaced by Model Rule 4.4(b), which is reprinted after the citations and quotations of the 1992 and…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Expert Exclusion — Scheduling Order Violation — When Only One Report Timely Submitted: “A Party Who … Put[s] All … Eggs in One Basket [Cannot] Complain When The Basket Proves Inadequate” (Good Quote)

González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del Turabo, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21449 (1st Cir. July 19, 2019): Scheduling orders are essential tools for modern-day case management, and litigants flout such orders at their peril. This case, in which plaintiff-appellant Aglaed…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Appropriate for Appeal “Brought without the Slightest Chance of Success” and Which “Thus Should Not Have Been Brought at All” (Good Quote)

Beter v. Murdoch, 2019 WL 2537524 (2d Cir. June 20, 2019) (unpublished):     SUMMARY ORDER   Plaintiff-Appellant Petra Beter, formerly a photographer for Michael Bloomberg’s first mayoral campaign, appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing her lawsuit asserting various causes …
Continue Reading

§ 1782: Where Foreign Case Over, Fact Discovery May Permit Reopening Likely Not “For Use” — Foreign View Applicant’s Claims Totally Lack Merit Relevant to “Receptivity” — Can Magistrate Judge Decide 1782s? (See Dissent)

Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22062 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019): 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizes, but does not require, federal district courts to assist in the production of evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal.…
Continue Reading

While Magistrate Judges May Not Impose Rule 11 Sanctions in the Second Circuit [& Can Only Issue R&Rs], They May Impose Monetary [& Other Non-Dispositive] Rule 37 Sanctions

Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15860 (2d Cir. May 29, 2019) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court…
Continue Reading

§ 1782 — Tag Service = “Found” — Signatory to Hague Evidence Convention Likely Receptive to U.S. Discovery — When Is Action “Within Reasonable Contemplation”? — Discovery from Anticipated Defendant Inappropriate

Sandra Holding v. Fawzi, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116920 (D. Mass. July 15, 2019): I. Introduction The petitioner, Sandra Holding Ltd. (Sandra Holding), seeks permission to obtain discovery in the United States for use in a foreign proceeding pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Default Judgment for Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Court-Ordered Discovery — Disobedience “Not Shown to Be Outside Control of Litigant” = Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault (Good Quote)

Apriori Techs. v. Broquard, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21963 (9th Cir. July 23, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Charles Jerome Broquard appeals pro se from the district court's default judgment and permanent injunction in plaintiff's diversity action alleging defamation, intentional interference …
Continue Reading
Previous59606162636465Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

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

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