17th Marks 17th - Joseph Hage Aaronson

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

17th Marks 17th

March 17, 2018, marks the 17th Anniverary of the Firm.

Share this article:

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors for Entry of a Default Judgment for Discovery Abuse — Meaning of “Possession, Custody Or Control” under Rule 34

Bankruptcy Court Has Inherent Authority to Impose Substantial Compensatory and Coercive Civil Contempt Sanctions — Burden of Proof/Factors for Civil Contempt

Even If Statutory Basis for Injunction Is Later Withdrawn by Supreme Court, That Does Not Excuse Contempt, Which The District Court Has Inherent Power to Sanction (Here, By a $40 Million Fine)

Rule 11 Sanctions — Fees Incurred Because of the Violation, Including Fees Incurred in Bringing the Sanctions Motion, Are Recoverable Even If They Are Covered by Insurance — Res Judicata vs Claim-Splitting (The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation): Unlike Res Judicata, Which Requires A Final Judgment, The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation Permits Dismissal of a Duplicative Action While the First Case Remains Pending — A Judicial Determination That A Proposed Amendment to A Complaint Would Be Futile Operates As A Ruling on The Merits

12(b)(6): To What Extent May A Court Consider An Expert Report Or Affidavit Annexed To A Complaint In Deciding A Dismissal Motion?

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Mistake — A Colorable But Erroneous Argument — Is Not Properly Sanctioned under FRAP 38 — (2) FRAP 38 Particularly Apt When Losing Party in Arbitration Is Using Frivolous Arguments to Delay Collection of Award

Sanctions in the Form of Penalty Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy — Award of Sanctions Not Subject to Statute of Limitations Defense

Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions for failure to disclose pursuant to Rule 26(a) — (1) Party facing Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Bears Burden of Proving Her Violations Were Substantially Justified or Harmless — (2) Ninth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test for Determining Whether Violation Is Harmless — (3) Parties Not Excused from Making Rule 26(a) Disclosures Simply Because They Don’t Have All Evidence — Must Disclose and Later Supplement — (4) When Rule 37(c)(1) Sanction Will Be Dispositive, Court Must Consider (a) Willfulness, Fault, Bad Faith and (b) Availability of Lesser Sanctions (9th Cir. Requirements) — (5) Court Is Required to Consider Lesser Sanctions Under Rule 37(c)(1) Only If Asked to Do So

Trial: Unanticipated/Undisclosed Evidence — An Objection Need Not Be Perfectly Contemporaneous with the Challenged Evidence to Be Timely

Inherent Power Sanctions: Finding of Willfulness ≠ Finding of Subjective Bad Faith — Due Process Requires Notice of Precise Rule, Standard or Law The Lawyer Allegedly Violated And How The Lawyer Allegedly Violated It

Archives

New York Office

© 2023 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice