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

Complex Lit Blog

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

Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1492 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026): Solomon Jones is representing himself in a civil rights action he filed in federal court in Illinois. The issues presented by his appeal are straightforwar ...
Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1492 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026): Solomon Jones is representing himself in a civil rights action he filed in federal court in Illinois. The issues presented by his appeal…
Continue Reading

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

Ambrosetti v. Or. Cath. Press, 151 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025): In this copyright infringement case, Plaintiff Vincent Ambrosetti alleges that Defendant Bernadette Farrell copied his liturgical work, "Emmanuel," in her own Christian music co ...
Ambrosetti v. Or. Cath. Press, 151 F.4th 1211 (9th Cir. 2025): In this copyright infringement case, Plaintiff Vincent Ambrosetti alleges that Defendant Bernadette Farrell copied his liturgical work, “Emmanuel,” in her own Christian music composition, “Christ Be Our Light.” …
Continue Reading

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)

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 505 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026): A party seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment may file a motion under
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 505 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026): A party seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment may file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Rule 60(c)(1)…
Continue Reading

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

Berk v. Choy, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 497 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026): The cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals has significantly increased in some areas of the country. In response, several States have imposed a screening mechanism on ...
Berk v. Choy, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 497 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026): The cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals has significantly increased in some areas of the country. In response, several States have imposed a screening mechanism on …
Continue Reading

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

Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., 2025 WL 3546769 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER *1 George Sachs, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action as time-barred. Th ...
Sachs v. Ricardo Inc., 2025 WL 3546769 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER *1 George Sachs, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action as time-barred. This case has been referred to a panel…
Continue Reading

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

Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025): *1085 The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) provides a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. This appeal asks at what point in the case, and with how much particularity, a DTSA plaintiff must specify its purported trade secrets. By definitio ...
Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025): *1085 The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) provides a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. This appeal asks at what point in the case,…
Continue Reading

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

Amazon.com, Inc. v. WDC Holdings LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23883 (4th Cir Sept. 16, 2025): Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Data Services, Inc. (together, Amazon) sued two former employees, a real estate developer, and related individuals and entities, ...
Amazon.com, Inc. v. WDC Holdings LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23883 (4th Cir Sept. 16, 2025): Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Data Services, Inc. (together, Amazon) sued two former employees, a real estate developer, and related individuals and entities, alleging an…
Continue Reading

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

Pable v. Chi. Transit Auth., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18688 (7th Cir. July 28, 2025): In this appeal, an attorney and client seek review of the court order sanctioning both of them for discovery misconduct. The case began when Christopher Pable, a soft ...
Pable v. Chi. Transit Auth., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18688 (7th Cir. July 28, 2025): In this appeal, an attorney and client seek review of the court order sanctioning both of them for discovery misconduct. The case began when Christopher…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

Shelly v. Fischer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18421 (7th Cir. July 24, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER In this consolidated appeal, Marzono Shelly, an Indiana prisoner, challenges the district court's orders in two cases that sanctione ...
Shelly v. Fischer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18421 (7th Cir. July 24, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER In this consolidated appeal, Marzono Shelly, an Indiana prisoner, challenges the district court’s orders in two cases that sanctioned him for knowingly submitting forged documents…
Continue Reading

§ 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?

Rowland v. Bible, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16554 (9th Cir. July 7, 2025) (unpublished): Attorney Philip Brumley was sanctioned by the district court under
Rowland v. Bible, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16554 (9th Cir. July 7, 2025) (unpublished): Attorney Philip Brumley was sanctioned by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard for providing …
Continue Reading
1234Next

Recent Posts

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