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

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal — Abuse of Discretion Review Is “More Exacting” When Judge is “Accuser, Fact Finder and Sentencing Judge All in One” — Client Responsible for Her Lawyer’s Discovery Defalcations — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing When Sanctions Based Entirely on an Established Record — Lesser Sanctions Reasonably Determined to be Ineffective Given Record of Repeated Discovery Abuses

Abbott Labs. v. H&H Wholesale Servs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24436 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished):   *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the ...
Abbott Labs. v. H&H Wholesale Servs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24436 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished):   *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants H&H…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Fabrication of Evidence and Lying about It to the Court — 2-Part Test for Dismissal Sanction (Eleventh Circuit) — Whether Fraud on Court Was Committed for the Court, Not a Jury

Frazier v. Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24682 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Cedrick and Tamara Frazier appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their medical malpractice suit against Southeast Georgia H ...
Frazier v. Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24682 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Cedrick and Tamara Frazier appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their medical malpractice suit against Southeast Georgia Health System,…
Continue Reading

New York Law Firm That Advised Florida Resident for Years Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Florida, Thus Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in Florida — Court Cannot Amend Protective Order Following Dismissal of Case Unless the Order Retains Jurisdiction Post-Dismissal — Parties Can Enforce Stipulated Protective Order Post-Dismissal Through Breach of Contract Action

In re Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd., 2025 WL 764608 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Background *1 This case is a consolidation of f ...
In re Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd., 2025 WL 764608 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Background *1 This case is a consolidation of four appeals1 filed by Appellant, Susan Devine, in two separate actions.…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(e)/Spoliation — “Intent to Deprive” Determined under the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard — Court May Make Determination Or Allow Jury to Do So — Lesser “Culpable Conduct” Standard of Residential Funding Continues to Apply in Second Circuit Outside ESI Context — Once Judge Has Definitively Ruled on the Record Denying A Requested Instruction, Counsel Is Not Required to Object to the Charge Again at Trial to Preserve Issue for Appeal

Hoffer v. Tellone, 128 F.4th 433 (2d Cir. 2025): Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the City of Yonkers, the City of Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under
Hoffer v. Tellone, 128 F.4th 433 (2d Cir. 2025): Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the City of Yonkers, the City of Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 (9011) and Inherent Power Sanctions for “Unapologetic [Refusal to Apologize] Defiance” of Court’s Rules and Orders — Advising Client to Take Steps That Same Judge Had Told Lawyer Were Improper in Prior Case — Obstinate Recidivism — Silence upon Withdrawal of Motion As Rule 11 (9011) Violation (Noted But Not Addressed on Appeal)

Sugar v. Burnett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5141 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025): *1 Christine ...
Sugar v. Burnett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5141 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025): *1 Christine Sugar appeals from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding that Sugar’s sale of her residence, without prior court authorization, violated her confirmed…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Sec'y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 128 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent traveling between cl ...
Sec’y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 128 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent traveling between clients’ homes. …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Lackey v. Stinnie, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 866, 2025 WL 594737 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025): Respondents are Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due to their failure to pay court fines or costs. The drivers sued the Commissioner of the Virginia ...
Lackey v. Stinnie, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 866, 2025 WL 594737 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025): Respondents are Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due to their failure to pay court fines or costs. The drivers sued the Commissioner of the …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025): If a complaint filed in state court asserts federal-law claims, the defendant may remove the case to federal court. See
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025): If a complaint filed in state court asserts federal-law claims, the defendant may remove the case to federal court. See 28 U. …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025):
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

Key v. Qualcomm Inc, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished): Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., tracking the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) theories that Qualcomm’s business practices violated state and federal antitrust law. These business practices include (1) Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, under which Qualcomm refuses to se ...
Key v. Qualcomm Inc, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished): Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., tracking the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) theories that Qualcomm’s business practices violated state and federal antitrust law. These business practices include …
Continue Reading
Previous12345Next

Recent Posts

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

“The Meaning Of Language Lies In How An Audience Understands [The] Words” (Good Quote)

Rule 11 Sanctions — Successful Dershowitz Appeal in Election Case — (1) Ninth Circuit Splits with Sixth Holding (2-1) All Signers of a Court Paper Are Liable for Everything in It, Even If They Can Prove They Had No Role in the Sanctionable Portions (Ed. Ques.: (i) How Did They “Violate[] The Rule” (Rule 11(c)(2))? (ii) Why Does Reasonableness Require Every Lawyer to Read Every Allegation? (iii) Why Can’t They Or Their Clients Allocate Work? (iv) How Are Limited-Role, Innocent Lawyers “Responsible for the Violation” (Rule 11(c)(2))?)) — (2) Goodyear v. Haeger Doesn’t Allow Innocent Lawyers to Prove They Did Not Cause Any Damages (Ed.: Majority Conflates Basis for Seeking Fees with Defense to Fees) — (3) From Concurrence: Duties of Local Counsel (n. 3)

Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions — Jurisdiction to Sanction Survives Demise of Case — Rule 11 Sanctions Require Both a Baseless Pleading And an Unreasonable Inquiry (The Latter of Which May Be Inferable from the Former) — Amount of Time Available Affects Analysis of What Investigation Is Reasonable — Meaning of “Bad Faith” for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Today Is The 24th Anniversary Of The Firm

RICO Person vs. Enterprise: Subsidiary in Typical Corporate Structure Does Not Control Parent And Therefore Does Not Conduct Parent’s Affairs

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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