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 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

Saninocencio v. Pierce & Mandell, P.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8100 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (unpublished): JUDGMENT Gary Dolan ("Dolan"), an attorney, appeals from the district court's entry of a January 14, 2022 ...
Saninocencio v. Pierce & Mandell, P.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8100 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (unpublished): JUDGMENT Gary Dolan (“Dolan”), an attorney, appeals from the district court’s entry of a January 14, 2022 order on sanctions that, inter alia…
Continue Reading

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

(1) Dep't of Educ. v. California, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1370, at *1-2 (April 4, 2025): Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court ...
(1) Dep’t of Educ. v. California, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1370, at *1-2 (April 4, 2025): Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court’s order …
Continue Reading

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

E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7976, 2025 WL 1007290 (8th Cir. April 4, 2025): *1 E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LCC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), alleging several breach-of-contract and tort claims arising from Liberty’s promise to ...
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7976, 2025 WL 1007290 (8th Cir. April 4, 2025): *1 E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LCC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company…
Continue Reading

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

Puckett v. Ain-Jeem, Inc., 2025 WL 948092 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025): ORDER *1 Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., and his wife, Marcella Puckett, both proceeding pro se, appeal a district court judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (No. 24-5282). Axencis, Inc. conditionally cross-appeals the same judgment. (No. ...
Puckett v. Ain-Jeem, Inc., 2025 WL 948092 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025): ORDER *1 Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., and his wife, Marcella Puckett, both proceeding pro se, appeal a district court judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint for lack of…
Continue Reading

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

Kia America, Inc. v. DMO Auto Acquisitions, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59773, 2025 WL 968786 (D.N.H. Mar. 31, 2025): *1 Plaintiff Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) brings this action against a collection of current and former car deale ...
Kia America, Inc. v. DMO Auto Acquisitions, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59773, 2025 WL 968786 (D.N.H. Mar. 31, 2025): *1 Plaintiff Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) brings this action against a collection of current and former car dealerships and…
Continue Reading

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)

Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369, 2025 WL 978102 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025): Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a ...
Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369, 2025 WL 978102 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025): Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a concurring opinion.…
Continue Reading

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

Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6961, *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kim Hartigan, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal district court against Hernand ...
Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6961, *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kim Hartigan, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal district court against Hernando County, Florida; the County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector…
Continue Reading

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)

Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025): *1 This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the di ...
Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025): *1 This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the district…
Continue Reading

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

It is easy to be critical of Paul Weiss’s deal with the Trump Administration.  But moral grandstanding aside, the Firm did the right thing.  Clients invest months and years, and large sums of money, in their law firms.  Clients lose all of that when the firm cannot act, or act effectively, for them.  Yes, there is a financial side to the deal.  There is also a self-preservation aspect.  ...
It is easy to be critical of Paul Weiss’s deal with the Trump Administration.  But moral grandstanding aside, the Firm did the right thing.  Clients invest months and years, and large sums of money, in their law firms.  Clients lose…
Continue Reading

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

Mula v. Mula, 2025 WL 869208 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Mula Jr. (“Mula”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against remaining Defendant-Appellees Alan Mula, Terry Wallace Campbell, Kristofer Biorn (“Biorn”), and the law ...
Mula v. Mula, 2025 WL 869208 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Mula Jr. (“Mula”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against remaining Defendant-Appellees Alan Mula, Terry Wallace Campbell, Kristofer Biorn (“Biorn”), and…
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

Recent Posts

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

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

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice