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

Rule 11 Order without Final Fees Award Appealable If Parties Stipulate as to Amount — First Amendment No Defense to Sanctions for Suing (1) without Standing (2) Immune Defendants — Substantial Frivolous Claims Not Outweighed by Sound Claims

Collins v. Daniels, 2019 WL 908645 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and …
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge Decisions — May or Must a District Judge Consider New Evidence When Reviewing De Novo Findings & Recommendation? — Circuit Split — Standard of Review of Unobjected to Portions

Seehawer v. McMinnville Water & Light, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27372, 2019 WL 826454 (D. Or. Feb. 21,2019): United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 10, 2018. ECF 52. Magistrate…
Continue Reading

R. 37 Sanctions—Dismissal—R. 26(a) Violated by Disclosure of New Evid. for New Legal Theory at End of Discovery — R. 16(f) Violated Where Sched. Order Required Disclosure in Time to Allow Deps. — Court Needn’t Tick Through All Factors

Gomez v. Haystax Tech., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6618 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019): In this appeal, Appellant Ramona Rae Gomez, a former employee of NetCentrics and Haystax Technology (collectively, "Appellees"), asserts that Appellees discriminated against her in…
Continue Reading

U.S. Courts Have Power under Bankruptcy Code to Pursue Foreign Subsequent Transfers of Fraudulent Conveyance — Neither Presumption against Extraterritoriality Nor International Comity Preclude This

In re Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 2019 WL 903978 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 These eighty-eight consolidated appeals arise from the ongoing fallout of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. As…
Continue Reading

Email Warning Proprietor of Dangerous Condition ≠ Hearsay If Offered for Notice — Fact Noticed Risk Is Somewhat Different Than Risk at Issue OK — Police Officer’s Alleged History of Excessive Force ≠ Rule 406 Habit or Routine Practice

Sherrod v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15699 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2019): This matter is currently before the Court on several motions in limine. Defendants Officer Sean C. Williams, Sergeant David M. Darkow, Chief Dennis Evers and the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Properly Denied Where Losing Party “Vigorously Litigated” But Not in Bad Faith (Good Quote) — Whether to Hold Evidentiary Hearing on Sanctions Motion, under Rule 43(a), Is Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion

In re Johnson (Gonzalez v. Johnson), 2019 WL 126753 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm. 1. Defendants-Appellants contend…
Continue Reading

Statute of Limitations — When a Prior Lawsuit Does, and Does Not, Trigger Inquiry Notice (2d Circuit) — Similarly Situated Plaintiffs in Near Proximity (Co-Tenants) Pressing Essentially the Same Grievance against One of the Same Defendants Is Enough

421-A Tenants Ass’n, Inc. v. 125 Court Street LLC, 2019 WL 317447 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Plaintiffs-Appellants 421-A Tenants Association, Inc., Vinetta Scrivo, and Richard Lebed (“the tenants”) appeal from the district court’s decision dismissing their class…
Continue Reading

R. 37 Dismissal Sanction: Fault=Unreasonable Conduct > “Mere Mistake or Slight Error in Judgment” — No Motion to Compel OK If Actual Notice of Risk Given by Adversary — Proportional Sanction ≠ Least — Eventual Compliance Not Nec’ly Enough

Mojapelo v. Nat’l RR Passenger Corp., 2019 WL 193126 (7th Cir. Jan. 15, 2019): ORDER *1 Charles Mojapelo injured his leg while disembarking from a train operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). He sued Amtrak for compensatory and…
Continue Reading
Previous74757677787980Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

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 Property 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?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice