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

Updated Article on Internet & Email Evidence (Part 1)

An updated version of Internet and Email Evidence (with additional focus on social media), as published this month in The Practical Litigator, is available here. Part 2 will be published in April. Reprinted with permission ...
An updated version of Internet and Email Evidence (with additional focus on social media), as published this month in The Practical Litigator, is available here. Part 2 will be published in April. Reprinted with permission. Subsequent note: Part 2…
Continue Reading

No Rule 11 Sanctions for Conduct in State Court — Injunction Void under Rule 65(d) for Vagueness and for Proscribing Lawful Acts

Blanco River, LLC v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2012): Blanco River, L.L.C., a real estate investment vehicle, is a limited liability Arizona corporation that sought to purchase and develop land bordering the Blanco River in Texas. Green was the manager of this venture, which failed. Blanco River sued Green, alleg ...
Blanco River, LLC v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2012): Blanco River, L.L.C., a real estate investment vehicle, is a limited liability Arizona corporation that sought to purchase and develop land bordering the Blanco River…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Second Circuit Sets High Threshold to Overturn Award on Grounds of “Evident Partiality” — Adopts Fourth Circuit Standards — Non-Disclosure Rarely Sufficient

Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. St. Paul F&M Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration constitutes "evident partiality" within the meaning ...
Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. St. Paul F&M Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators…
Continue Reading

RICO — Horizontal and Vertical Relatedness

United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): The substantive RICO provision under which the defendants were convicted makes it unlawful for "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a ...
United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): The substantive RICO provision under which the defendants were convicted makes it unlawful for “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . .…
Continue Reading

Standards for Deposing Opposing Counsel — Claim for Attorney’s Fees Does Not Open Door to Deposition

United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Goldin Metals, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4881 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2011): The Goldins are defendants in a related civil suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. *** The Goldins tendered defense of the NCI lawsuit to Plaintiff, United States Liability Insurance ...
United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Goldin Metals, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4881 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2011): The Goldins are defendants in a related civil suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of…
Continue Reading

Impact of Daubert at Class Certification — Conflicting Circuit Views

Third Circuit: “[The district court] need not turn class certification into a mini-trial.... We understand the Court’s observation [i.e., the Supreme Court’s observation in Dukes] to require a district court to evaluate whether an expert is presenting a model which could evolve to become admissible evidence, and ...
Third Circuit: “[The district court] need not turn class certification into a mini-trial…. We understand the Court’s observation [i.e., the Supreme Court’s observation in Dukes] to require a district court to evaluate whether an expert is presenting a model which…
Continue Reading

Extraterritorial Reach of RICO — Is Test Location of Enterprise or of Pattern? — No Proximate Cause between Money Laundering Predicate and Pretextual Firing

Cedeño v. Castillo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1469 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (affirming the decision excerpted in our post of October 10, 2010): On appeal, Cedeño ... [f]irst ... contends that his claim fits within the scope of RICO's domestic application because it alleges conduct in the United States that is within RICO's "focus." See Morr ...
Cedeño v. Castillo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1469 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (affirming the decision excerpted in our post of October 10, 2010): On appeal, Cedeño … [f]irst … contends that his claim fits within the scope of RICO’s…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction Imposed on Attorney for Failure to Monitor ECF and Missing a Hearing That Was Noticed Only Electronically and Just Two Days before the Hearing Date

United States v. Romero-Lopez, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22897 (1st Cir. Nov. 16, 2011): Attorney ... was sanctioned by the district court, under its inherent powers, in the amount of $1,500 for failing to appear at the rescheduled sentencing hearing for his client, a criminal defendant. We affirm the issuance of the sanction, but reduce the ...
United States v. Romero-Lopez, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22897 (1st Cir. Nov. 16, 2011): Attorney … was sanctioned by the district court, under its inherent powers, in the amount of $1,500 for failing to appear at the rescheduled sentencing hearing…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Rule 23(c)(1)(B) Requires a Readily Discernible, Clear and Precise (1) Statement of the Parameters Defining the Class and (2) Complete List of Claims, Issues or Defenses

Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1478 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 2012): Charter One appealed the district court's certification order, and this interlocutory appeal is now before us on (1) the very narrow issue of whether the district court judge's certification order complied with Rule 23(c)(1)(B) and (2) whether the two certif ...
Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1478 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 2012): Charter One appealed the district court’s certification order, and this interlocutory appeal is now before us on (1) the very narrow issue of whether the…
Continue Reading

Cunningham Dictates that Inherent Power Sanctions, Like Discovery Sanctions, Are Not Appealable on Interlocutory Basis under Collateral Order Doctrine

Douglas v. Merck & Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1288 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2012): Attorney Gary Douglas, counsel to plaintiff Shirley Boles during the trial of her products liability action against defendant Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck"), appeals the district court's October 4, 2010 order imposing on him a $2,500 sanction for improperly suggestin ...
Douglas v. Merck & Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1288 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2012): Attorney Gary Douglas, counsel to plaintiff Shirley Boles during the trial of her products liability action against defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”), appeals the…
Continue Reading
Previous322323324325326327328Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

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