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

Dismissal without Prejudice Doesn’t Make Def. Prevailing Party — Nor Does Defeating Preliminary Injunction — Must Have Judicial Action Changing Parties’ Relationship, Like Winning PI & Causing Opponent to Relent

Live v. Lonestar Logos Mgmt. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32139 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2018): This is the first Defend Trade Secrets Act case that has reached our court. 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (effective May 11, 2016). But…
Continue Reading

Private Citizen Lacks Judicially Cognizable Interest in Prosecution of Another, Cannot Sue for Punishment or Deportation, Just As S/he Cannot Commence Criminal Action

Valmord v. Acs/Administration Children Servs., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20301 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019): Plaintiff Ritchlet W. Valmord brings this pro se action against his former wife, Lila Cesar ("Cesar"), and four other defendants who allegedly helped her obtain…
Continue Reading

Does the FSIA Apply, & Limit Jurisdiction, in Criminal Cases? (Circuit Split) — Under Animal Sciences, Decl. of Foreign Law from Counsel Rejected (R. 44.1) — Old Cases=“Era When Jurisdiction Had Too Many Meanings (Good Quote)

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2019 WL 125891 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): Per Curiam:*Opinion Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams. *1 With the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act …
Continue Reading

Prejudgment Interest — On Federal Claims, S.D.N.Y. Judges Split on Use of NY vs. Fed. Rate — Here, Fed. Rate Chosen, Even Though State Rate Necessarily Used for State Claims & Plaintiff Actually Earned 11% During Period

Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Local 272 Welfare Fund, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13385 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2019) (R&R):  REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SARAH NETBURN, [*2]  United States Magistrate Judge. TO THE HONORABLE RONNIE ABRAMS: In 2009, Plaintiff Montefiore …
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal Requires Non-Compliance with Court Order “Longer Than Just a Few Months” & “Characterized by Significant Periods of Inactivity” — Merely “Careless, Inconsiderate … Exasperating” Conduct Insufficient

Morgan v. Ams. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 205 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2019): Appellant A-Plus Contractors, L.L.C. ("A-Plus") and its owner, Appellant Stacy Morgan ("Morgan"), appeal the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their lawsuit under Federal …
Continue Reading

Court Lacks Inherent Power (IHP) to Bar Retrial after 2 Hung Juries Where No Prej’l Gov’t Misconduct — Exercise of IHP Must Be Proportionate & Not Contrary to Rule or Stat.—Can’t Create Rule in Conflict with Fed. Rules

United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1541 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2019): The District Court barred a retrial of and dismissed the indictment against Defendant Raymont Wright with prejudice after two juries failed to reach a verdict. …
Continue Reading

Getting Dismissal with Prej. by Settling ≠ “Prevailing Party” — Citing Cases w/o Settlement = “Willful Obtuseness” & Objective Bad Faith under 1927 — Sua Sponte Despite 11(c)(5)(B) Limits on Post-Jmt. $ Sua Sponte (Dicta; Waived)

Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32196 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2018): Richard Bell brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Vacuforce, LLC, accusing it of publishing his photograph of the Indianapolis skyline on its website without a …
Continue Reading

Witness’s Denial (& Usually Admission & Maybe Inability to Recall) S/he Sent Texts Opens Door under R. 613(b) to Evidence of Texts Showing Bias under R. 608(b) — Questions Eliciting Admissible Answers ≠ Hearsay

United States v. Fernandez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2019): A jury convicted Luis Fernandez of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Fernandez appeals his conviction, contending that…
Continue Reading

Video Spoliation — Negligent Loss / Destruction Insufficient, Willfulness Required (4th Cir. Common Law) — Defendant’s Mistaken Belief Video Preserved Precludes Willfulness, Sanctions — Same Result under Rule 37(e) (Adopted During Case)

Boone v. Everett, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818, 2019 WL 493681 (4th Cir. Feb. 7, 2019) (unpublished): Wally Boone, a Virginia inmate, appeals the denial of his motion for sanctions on the basis of spoliation against former Virginia correctional officer …
Continue Reading
Previous75767778798081Next

Recent Articles

§ 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

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

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