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 for State Court Misconduct in Removed Case: Rule 11 Irrelevant, Whether / If Federal Court Should Apply State Sanctions Rules Is Matter of Dispute — Order to Show Cause Issued As to Why Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue

Wronko v. Martin, 2018 WL 4562462 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018): INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon three Motions for Rule 11 Sanctions. (ECF Nos. 70, 72, 73.) These Motions are brought by Defendants Michael Baltazar, Borough of…
Continue Reading

Fourfold Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions / Single Purpose of § 1927 Sanctions — Depositions: Objection “You Can Answer If You Know” or “Understand” Is Always Improper — Conduct Not OK in Courtroom Not OK at Deposition (Good Quotes)

Hunter v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4352823 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018): ORDER AND REASONS *1 Before the Court are two related motions, the “Motion for an Order for Sanctions, Attorney Fees, Perjury, and to Reschedule the Depositions…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Information on Government Websites Is Self-Authenticating under Rule 902(5) and Admissible under Rule 803(8) (Public Records Exception)

Rychorcewicz v. Welltec, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123512 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018) (Report and Recommendation): Pending before the court1 is Defendant Welltec, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 89) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Untimely Rule 59(e) Motion = 60(b) Motion & Appeal Is from Denial of That — Removal: While Remand Orders Are Usually Unappealable, They Are for Removal under § 1443, Allowing Removal Where Constitutional Rights Can’t Be Enforced in State Ct

Sanders v. Wright, 2018 WL 3933773 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* *1 Rockey D. Wright, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s denying his motion for relief following its remanding his child-custody action to state court after Wright…
Continue Reading

RICO: Res Judicata Effect of State Court Judgment Determined by State Law — Where State Would Not Permit Collateral Attack of Judgment on Grounds of Suppression of Evidence, RICO Claim Alleging That Fails

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24024 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018): MEMORANDUM* Joan Kearney ("Kearney") appeals from the district court's summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. HN1[]…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Bankruptcy Court Has Inherent Power to Suspend, Disbar Lawyers from Practicing Before It — Recidivist Bad Faith Conduct Gleaned by Judicial Notice — Rule 11 Precedent Rightly Relied on Construing 9011

Koebel v. Chandler (In re Cuevas), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23838 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018): MEMORANDUM* In this consolidated appeal, Philip E. Koebel (Koebel) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision affirming a bankruptcy court's orders suspending …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Failure to Respond to Discovery for 5 Mos., Despite Court Orders = Flagrant Disregard, Merits Dismissal — No Need to Consider Lesser Sanctions Where Determination They’d Be Ineffective “Radiates from” Opin. (Good Quotes)

Lyons v. O’Quinn, 2018 WL 4031032 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018): *1 Jackie Lyons appeals the district court’s order dismissing his suit as a discovery sanction, and another order denying his motion for reconsideration of three prior orders. The district …
Continue Reading
Previous90919293949596Next

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