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

Rule 37 Sanctions: 4 Purposes — Rule 30 Sanctions for Deposition Misconduct: Asking Defendant If He Wants to Apologize, Repeating It 6 Times, Demanding Yes Or No Answer, Arguing with Witness — CLE Ordered

Tajonera v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181998 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015): This matter is before the Court on remand from the District Judge. (Rec. doc. 686). It involves an earlier Order and Reasons issued by this Court in which sanctions were assessed against counsel for Grand Isle Shipyards ("GIS ...
Tajonera v. Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181998 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015): This matter is before the Court on remand from the District Judge. (Rec. doc. 686). It involves an earlier Order and Reasons issued…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Opponent’s Filings with Gov’t Agency Noticed for Fact of Filing, Not for Contents, on 12(b)(6) Motion — 12(f) Motion to Strike Disfavored, Should Be Denied unless Allegations Have No Conceivable Relevance

Morton & Bassett, LLC v. Organic Spices, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120092 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2016): Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Counterclaimant Organic Spices, Inc. ("Defendant"). Dkt. No. 40 ("Mot."). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff Morton & Bassett, LLC's ("Plaint ...
Morton & Bassett, LLC v. Organic Spices, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120092 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2016): Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Counterclaimant Organic Spices, Inc. ("Defendant"). Dkt. No. 40 ("Mot."). Defendant moves to…
Continue Reading

Experts — Opinion on Credibility of Persons Barred, on Credibility of Documents Permitted — Witnesses May Not Testify as to the Credibility of Other Witnesses (Good Quote)

FHFA v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., 2015 WL 353929 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2015): *1 This Opinion addresses the defendants’1 motion to exclude expert testimony to be offered at trial on behalf of plaintiff Federal Housing Fina ...
FHFA v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., 2015 WL 353929 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2015): *1 This Opinion addresses the defendants’1 motion to exclude expert testimony to be offered at trial on behalf of plaintiff Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) by …
Continue Reading

Website Evidence — 21st Century Image of Ancient Document on Government Website = Ancient Document — Judicial Notice OK Where Gov’t Sponsorship Can Be Verified by Visiting Site

Cave Buttes, LLC v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 2016 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 27; 147 T.C. No. 10 (U.S. Tax Court Sept. 20, 2016): Cave Buttes, LLC owned 11 acres on a hill that in the distance overlooked downtown Phoenix. But up close it overlooked a dam owned by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. The District staff did not want ...
Cave Buttes, LLC v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 2016 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 27; 147 T.C. No. 10 (U.S. Tax Court Sept. 20, 2016): Cave Buttes, LLC owned 11 acres on a hill that in the distance overlooked downtown Phoenix.…
Continue Reading

Is Service of a Subpoena by Federal Express Effective? Circuit Split

Selee Corp. v. McDanal Advanced Ceramic Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117319 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016): 2   CoorsTek also challenged Plaintiff's second subpoena [*12]  on the grounds that delivery by Federal Express does not constitute service as contemplated by Rule 45. As no ...
Selee Corp. v. McDanal Advanced Ceramic Techs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117319 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016): 2   CoorsTek also challenged Plaintiff's second subpoena [*12]  on the grounds that delivery by Federal Express does not constitute service as contemplated by Rule…
Continue Reading

Extrinsic Evidence on 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss — Good Discussion of Proper/Improper Use of Judicial Notice and Incorporation by Reference (3 Types) — Unfairness of New Matter in Reply in Era of No Oral Argument

Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136527 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Pension Fund, and others filed this lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Defendants Puma B ...
Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136527 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Pension Fund, and others filed this lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange…
Continue Reading

Does Fiduciary Relationship Impose Duty to Disclose Not Otherwise Existing under Securities Laws? — Circuit Split — Duty Usually Depends on Whether Omission Renders Statement False/Misleading, Not Materiality (Texas A.G. Ken Paxton Case)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mapp, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140141 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2016): Pending before the Court is Warren K. Paxton, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) (Dkt. #16). Having considered the relevant pleadings and oral arguments of the parties, ...
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mapp, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140141 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2016): Pending before the Court is Warren K. Paxton, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) (Dkt. #16). Having…
Continue Reading

Facebook & Viber Messages Authenticated by One Party to Conversation — Kentucky Follows Circumstantial Approach to Authenticity of Social Media — Not “Magical,” Like Photos (Good Quote)

Kays v. Commonwealth, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 177 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2016):  Casey Kays stands convicted of one count of rape1 and one count of sodomy,2 both in the third degree. Conviction followed an October 2014 trial where jurors chose the maximum sentence of five years on each charge, terms to be served con ...
Kays v. Commonwealth, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 177 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2016):  Casey Kays stands convicted of one count of rape1 and one count of sodomy,2 both in the third degree. Conviction followed an October 2014 trial where…
Continue Reading

How to Write an Effective Cert Petition (Excellent Discussion and Source Materials) — The Limits of Supreme Court Summary Reversals Given That Discussion of the Merits Is Discouraged in Cert Petitions

Visciotti v Martel, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18579 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2016) (Berzon (who wrote the unanimous panel opinion) and Pregerson, concurring): Not surprisingly, I join the principal opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize one point: This case illustrates that Supreme Court summary reversals cannot, and do not, re ...
Visciotti v Martel, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18579 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2016) (Berzon (who wrote the unanimous panel opinion) and Pregerson, concurring): Not surprisingly, I join the principal opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize one point: This …
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Mandamus: Nonparty’s Ex-Lawyer Pointing Finger at Nonparty Subject to Prosecution — Trial Taint = Substantial Relationship + Confidential Info — Collateral Order Doctrine Inapt — Confidentiality

United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2016): Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, J.)2 from the denial of Hermitage Capital Management Ltd.'s ("Hermitage") motion to disqualify counsel for Pre ...
United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2016): Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, J.)2 from the denial of Hermitage Capital Management…
Continue Reading
Previous158159160161162163164Next

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

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