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

Witness Litigation Privilege Gives Absolute Immunity from Civil Action for Testimony & Prep, Bars RICO Claim vs Expert — Common Law Immunities Must Be Expressly Eliminated — Perjury ≠ Predicate Act — Civ, Crim RICO Don’t Always Have Same Reach

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Court Can’t Read Improper Purpose into Document Well-Grounded in Fact & Law unless Improper Purpose Is Objectively Ascertainable — Disagreement About Law ≠ Frivolous — Arg. Must’ve Been Rejected by Well-Established Case Law

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Failure to Stop 3rd Party Doc Destruction = Bad Faith Spoliation — § 285 Exceptional Case Award Limited to Fees Caused by Misconduct — Improper to Pay Fact Witnesses Contingently, unless Patent Assignment / License Involved

Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Comcast of Fla./Pa., LP (In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22689 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018): This appeal derives from a multitude of patent infringement actions that plaintiffs-appellants Rembrandt Technologies,…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782’s “Resides Or Is Found” Requirement Is Satisfied Only If the Relationship of the Person to the District Would Warrant Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Him or Her

In re Ruiz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180262 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018): Petitioners in the above-captioned [*4]  actions have applied for court orders to conduct discovery for use in foreign proceedings, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section …
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal without Prejudice Warranted for Refusal to Arbitrate as Ordered by Court — Circuit Has Jurisdiction Despite Microsoft — No Review of Interlocutory Orders After Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., LLC, 2018 WL 4625167 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018): 1 When Plaintiff-Appellant Jernard Griggs began working as an Independent Associate (“IA”) for Ignite, he agreed to Ignite’s Policies & Procedures, which includes an arbitration clause covering…
Continue Reading

Even When Intentional Spoliation Occurs, Court Has Discretion Not to Issue Adverse Inference Instruction Or Other Severe Sanction — Ultimately, Significance of Spoliation Evidence Is for the Jury to Weigh

Lexpath Techs. Holdings v. Welch, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21034 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018): * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Defendant-Appellee, Brian Welch, …
Continue Reading

When District Court May Sanction for Frivolous Appeal — Class Actions: Sanctions for Objector Blackmail — Failure to Accept Stip As Proof of Bad Faith — Misrep + Frivolousness = Bad Faith—FRAP 7 (Appeal Bond) Requires Dist Ct to Prejudge Appeal

In re Petrobras Secs. Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161898 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2018): Those who file objections to class action settlements may themselves be pursuing widely varying objectives, ranging from the useful to the self-serving. On the positive…
Continue Reading
Previous87888990919293Next

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