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

Snapchat: Authentication v. Rule of Completeness: If Not Misleading or Relevant, No Need to Offer All Messages to Authenticate Some — Recipient’s Testimony Sender Was “Friend” Who Gave Her His Username + Content — Photos of Text Fair, Accurate

State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019): I. INTRODUCTION [*934] Sami S. Mrza appeals his jury conviction and sentencing for first degree sexual assault. Although he assigns multiple errors, we focus on two issues: the authentication requirement for "Snapchat" …
Continue Reading

R. 11 & Inherent Power Sanctions: Relitigating Issues without Offering New Facts Unnec’y to Preserve Review, Is Sanctionable — But Not Raising Issue Undecided by S. Ct. or Courts in Cir., Or Identifying Adverse Case & Seeking Different Result

Carmax Auto Superstores v. Sibley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11504 (4th Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Montgomery B. Sibley appeals the district court's orders granting CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.'s ("CarMax") petition to confirm an arbitration award, denying…
Continue Reading

Party Can Agree to Court’s Jurisdiction to Compel Arbitration without Waiving Personal Jd Defense Otherwise — Intent of Parties to Contract Controls Whether Non-Signatory (Subrogee) Can Compel — Court Decides If 3d Party Can Compel v. Arbitrability

Halliburton Energy Servs. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11255 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): An oil rig caught fire and exploded in Ohio. Statoil USA Onshore Properties operated the rig, Halliburton Energy Services fracked at…
Continue Reading

Daubert/Experts: Focus = Helpfulness & Threshold Low (Relevance) — Judge Not to Supplant Jury, Rejection of Testimony Is Exception, Not Rule (Good Quotes) — Manifest Error Standard in Reviewing Expert Evidence Rulings — R. 50(b)=Anti-Ambush

Puga v. RCX Sols., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that the pending joint motion for clarification of this court's opinion is GRANTED and our prior panel opinion, Puga v. RCX …
Continue Reading

R. 37(c) Sanctions: Damages Evidence Excluded, Resulting in Dismissal of Claim, for Failure to Disclose Pursuant to Rule 26(a) — 9th Cir. Factors When Exclusion = Dismissal — Weighing Choice of Law Factors under Restatement 2d §188

Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019): Appellants operate a gas purification plant in King County, Washington. In 2010, metal brackets securing a crucial component broke, resulting in …
Continue Reading

Rule 404(b): Use of Other Bad Acts Evidence Has Always Been Problematic (Good Quote) — Lack of Accident Evidence OK Only If State Has Reliable Assurance Accident Defense Will Be Raised (Here, Statements to Media, Police), Or Already Has Been

Fairbanks v. State, 119 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019): 1]In criminal cases, Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)’s purpose is to prevent the jury from indulging in the “forbidden inference”—that a defendant must be guilty of the charged crime…
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge May Impose Criminal Contempt ($5,000 on Counsel) — No Need for Subject Matter Jurisdiction If Order Violated — Crim. Contempt = Separate Proceeding — Lawyer Must Assert Privilege Question by Ques. — Order = Compulsory Process

United States v. LeFande (In re LeFande), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8965, 2019 WL 1339452 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2019): Matthew LeFande appeals an order summarily holding him in criminal contempt for refusing a magistrate judge's orders to take …
Continue Reading

Facebook Page/Photos Sufficiently Authenticated by Equivocal Admissions (Didn’t Know Password for “My Facebook”), Contents (Photos of Alleged Page Owner), Message from Account with Owner’s First Name, Receipt of Page Data from Facebook

People v. Griffis, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2019):  [*1]  APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Remanded for sentencing; and judgment otherwise affirmed.  …
Continue Reading
Previous68697071727374Next

Recent Articles

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)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

RICO Pattern: No Closed-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Lasted Less Than One Year (11th Circuit) — Conspiracy Allegations Governed by Rule 8(a), Not 9(b) — Two Paths to Establishing A RICO Conspiracy: Agreement to Objective Or to Commit 2 Predicate Acts — Plaintiff Need Not Show Reliance When The Predicate Acts Are Wire Fraud — In Dicta, 11th Circuit Intimates That Even If The Primary RICO Violation Allegations Fail, The RICO Conspiracy Allegations Might Survive, But Is Probably Talking About A Conspiracy to Commit The Predicate Acts

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