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

§ 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 LEXIS 16554 (9th Cir. July 7, 2025) (unpublished): Attorney Philip Brumley was sanctioned by the district court under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 LEXIS 16554 (9th Cir. July 7, 2025) (unpublished): Attorney Philip Brumley was sanctioned by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard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

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

Gardner-Alfred v. FRB of N.Y., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025): Defendant-appellee the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the "Federal Reserve") declined the requests of plaintiffs-appellants Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz f ...
Gardner-Alfred v. FRB of N.Y., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025): Defendant-appellee the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the “Federal Reserve”) declined the requests of plaintiffs-appellants Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz for a religious exemption…
Continue Reading

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

Parrish v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1664 (2025): In civil litigation, filing your notice of appeal too late deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal. Litigants who miss the appeal deadline because they do not timely rec ...
Parrish v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1664 (2025): In civil litigation, filing your notice of appeal too late deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal. Litigants who miss the appeal deadline because they do not timely …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Bilodeau v. Usinage Berthold, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893 (2d Cir. June 27, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the August 9, 2024, judgment of the District Court is
Bilodeau v. Usinage Berthold, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893 (2d Cir. June 27, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the August 9, 2024, judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellee Tricia Bilodeau brought this action,…
Continue Reading

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

Chavez-Deremer v. Ascent Constr., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14196 (10th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT** In this civil action brought by the United Stat ...
Chavez-Deremer v. Ascent Constr., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14196 (10th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT** In this civil action brought by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) to enforce the Employee Retirement Income Security…
Continue Reading

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

Rice v. Chief Exam'r of the Ala. Dep't of Exam'rs of Pub. Accounts, 2025 U.S. App. LE ...
Rice v. Chief Exam’r of the Ala. Dep’t of Exam’rs of Pub. Accounts, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15558, 2025 WL 1743708 (11th Cir. June 24, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 In September 2019, Plaintiff Brian Rice received an appraisal…
Continue Reading

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

BPI Sports, LLC v. ThermoLife Int'l LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14743 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (unpublished): The parties cross-appeal a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of false advertising under the La ...
BPI Sports, LLC v. ThermoLife Int’l LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14743 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (unpublished): The parties cross-appeal a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of false advertising under…
Continue Reading

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Ratfield v. United States Drug Testing Labs., Inc., 2025 WL 1670353 (7th Cir. June 13, 2025):1 Plaintiffs, comprised of Andrea Ratfield, ten other pilots, a physician, a nurse, and an attorney, were all required to undergo alcohol testing to maintain their employment and professional licenses. Here, the testing came in the form of a dried blood spot test developed by U ...
Ratfield v. United States Drug Testing Labs., Inc., 2025 WL 1670353 (7th Cir. June 13, 2025):1 Plaintiffs, comprised of Andrea Ratfield, ten other pilots, a physician, a nurse, and an attorney, were all required to undergo alcohol testing to…
Continue Reading

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)

Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (U.S. June 20, 2025): Pursuant to the Cl ...
Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (U.S. June 20, 2025): Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency approved California regulations requiring automakers to alter their fleets of new vehicles.…
Continue Reading

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

Wright v. Lloyds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court's dismissal of her homeowner's insurance claims agai ...
Wright v. Lloyds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court’s dismissal of her homeowner’s insurance claims against ASI Lloyds (“ASI”), its denial of her motion to compel…
Continue Reading
1234Next

Recent Posts

§ 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