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

Circuit Splits Created with Trepidation — Good Quotes

Anderson v. Private Capital Grp., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20613 (10th Cir. Oct. 10, 2013): We need not reach any general conclusions regarding whether the void ab initio exception has any room to operate in the Tenth Circuit. It is sufficient for us to say that Mr. Anderson has failed to offer us any cog ...
Anderson v. Private Capital Grp., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20613 (10th Cir. Oct. 10, 2013): We need not reach any general conclusions regarding whether the void ab initio exception has any room to operate in the Tenth Circuit. It…
Continue Reading

Can a Party Consent to the Bankruptcy Court Entering a Final Order in a Core Matter Otherwise Barred by Stern v. Marshall? — Circuit Split

In re Morris (Silagy v. Morris), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4369 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2013): The last jurisdictional issue is whether a party can consent, either expressly or impliedly, to the bankruptcy court entering a final order in a core matter that would normally be prohibited by Stern. There is currently a circuit split o ...
In re Morris (Silagy v. Morris), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4369 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2013): The last jurisdictional issue is whether a party can consent, either expressly or impliedly, to the bankruptcy court entering a final order in a …
Continue Reading

Rule 26(a)(1) Damages Disclosure — “Substantial Justification” and Harmless Error — No Requirement That Expert Perform Complicated Initial Disclosures

U.S. Bank N.A. v. PHL Variable Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143398 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013): "Substantial justification may be demonstrated where there is justification to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ as to whether the party was required to comply with the disclosure re ...
U.S. Bank N.A. v. PHL Variable Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143398 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013): "Substantial justification may be demonstrated where there is justification to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ …
Continue Reading

RICO — Deprivation of Workers Comp ≠ Injury to Business or Property But Personal Injury — Clear Statement Canon of Interpretation — “The Most Liberal Construction of RICO Is Not Always the Proper One” — Good Quotes

Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19495 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013): Clifton Jackson and Christopher Scharnitzke were employees of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("Coca-Cola") who suffered work-related injuries. They applied for workers' compensation benefits from Coca-Cola through Sedgwick ...
Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19495 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013): Clifton Jackson and Christopher Scharnitzke were employees of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("Coca-Cola") who suffered work-related injuries. They applied for workers' compensation benefits from…
Continue Reading

Under New York Choice of Law Principles, If Parties Assume or Agree That New York Law Controls, It Does

Tripoint Global Equities, LLC v. Fasolino, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150271 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2013): Having resolved the usury counts, the next substantive issue is the legal malpractice claim against Weiss in Count One. Both parties assume that New York law applies to the legal malpractice claim, but they do not directly add ...
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC v. Fasolino, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150271 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2013): Having resolved the usury counts, the next substantive issue is the legal malpractice claim against Weiss in Count One. Both parties assume that New York …
Continue Reading

Extension of 30-Day Period within Which to File Notice of Appeal — Factors to Prove Excusable Neglect or Good Cause

Hochstadt v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19418 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): We review "for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to grant or deny an extension of time to file a notice of appeal." Williams v. KFC Nat'l Mgmt. Co., 391 F.3d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Federal ...
Hochstadt v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19418 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): We review "for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to grant or deny an extension of time to file a notice of appeal."…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Are Imposable for, But Not Limited to, Dilatory Conduct

B. Willis CPA, Inc. v. Public Serv. Co. of Okla., 511 F. App'x 753 (10th Cir. 2013): Under a heading titled "The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider a Motion For Sanctions," Aplt. Opening Br. at 17, Mr. Dickson makes several arguments. First, he argues that "Section 1927 targets the vexatious and unreaso ...
B. Willis CPA, Inc. v. Public Serv. Co. of Okla., 511 F. App'x 753 (10th Cir. 2013): Under a heading titled "The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider a Motion For Sanctions," Aplt. Opening Br. at 17, Mr. Dickson makes…
Continue Reading

Does a Complete Offer of Settlement Made Prior to Class Certification Moot a Class Action? — Circuit Split — Impact of Genesis — District Court Decision Not Binding on Other District Courts

Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142527 (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2013): Plaintiff Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiff asserts a putative class action claim under the Telepho ...
Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142527 (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2013): Plaintiff Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant Jackson Therapy Partners, LLC ("Defendant"). Plaintiff asserts a putative class…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Not Intended to Deter Novel or First Impression Arguments (Good Quote) — Local Counsel Allocated 25% of Penalty for Signing Frivolous Pleading — Acrimony as Requiring Greater Factual Inquiry

Walther v. McIntosh, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144730 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2013):   Dorothy B. Walther is the income beneficiary of the James Walther Revocable Life Insurance Trust. (Doc. 5, ¶ 14.) Howard Walther, her son, is a contingent remainderman beneficiary of the Trust. (Id.) These Plaintiffs brought suit in ...
Walther v. McIntosh, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144730 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2013):   Dorothy B. Walther is the income beneficiary of the James Walther Revocable Life Insurance Trust. (Doc. 5, ¶ 14.) Howard Walther, her son, is a contingent remainderman …
Continue Reading

Experts — The Helpfulness Threshold of Rule 702 Is Low — The District Court, Not the Court of Appeals, Is the Primary Gatekeeper

EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19867 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013): Footnote 14.   The EEOC presented testimony by Dr. Liza Gold--a medical-school professor, board-certified psychiatrist, and author of a treatise on sexual harassment--regarding the nature of same-sex harassment from a psychological perspective ...
EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19867 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013): Footnote 14.   The EEOC presented testimony by Dr. Liza Gold–a medical-school professor, board-certified psychiatrist, and author of a treatise on sexual harassment–regarding the…
Continue Reading
Previous271272273274275276277Next

Recent Posts

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?

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

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