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

August 27, 2009

Rule 11 Motion Served 4 Days Before Pending Summary Judgment Motion Granted Rejected Because 21-Day Safe Harbor Period Not Afforded

From Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16403 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2009): On May 20, 2003, four days after Citrix served Fink with its motion for sanctions, the district court granted Citrix's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.*** On June 19, 2003, Citrix filed its motion for sanctions under Rule 11 ...
From Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16403 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2009): On May 20, 2003, four days after Citrix served Fink with its motion for sanctions, the district court granted Citrix’s motion for summary judgment…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

Rule 11 Sanctions — Even If Court Invites Sanctions Motion, Safe Harbor Must Be Complied With — If Safe Harbor Is Not Provided, Court May Not Proceed Sua Sponte without Affording the Due Process Required by Rule 11(c)(3): Issuing a Show Cause Order Why Conduct Specifically Described In The Order Has Not Violated — The Show Cause Order Need Not Be A Separate Order — Appellee’s Request That Appellate Court Consider Alternate Ground of Inherent Power Sanctions Fails Due to Lack of Notice That Inherent Power Sanctions, and Therefore Bad Faith, Were At Issue

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal That Has “Some Arguable Basis” Either in Law or Fact—A Low Bar—Is Not Frivolous — “Simply Quibbl[ing]”/Raising Factual Disputes Insufficient to Obtain Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Imposes FRAP 38 Sanctions Only If An Improper Purpose Underlies the Appeal — Simply Seeking Sanctions Below (Unsuccessfully) And On Appeal Is Not Per Se Violative of § 1927

RICO: “The RICO Statute Is A Very Powerful, But Tricky, Tool” (Good Quote) — The Seven Elements of a RICO Claim, Before Even Reaching Injury and Causation — “Courts Must Flush Out Frivolous RICO Completes At An Early Stage Of The Litigation” (Good Quote) — 9(b) Obligations for Fraud-Based RICO Claims — The 3 Features of the Structure Requirement for the Enterprise Element — Factors Analyzed in Determining Whether Association-in-Fact Enterprise Pled — Hub-and-Spoke Structure ≠ Enterprise —Merely Taking Directions Insufficient for §1962(c) Liability —Operation and Management Test = Low Hurdle —Commission of Predicate Acts by Enterprise Insufficient — RICO Persons Must Commit the Acts —2-Year Minimum for Closed-End Continuity in Second Circuit — Horizontal and Vertical Relatedness: Requirements

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice