One Score - Joseph Hage Aaronson

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

One Score

March 17, 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Firm

Share this article:

Recent Posts

Affirmative Defense Properly Considered On Dismissal Motion If It Is Clear From The Face Of The Complaint And Matters Of Which The Court May Take Judicial Notice That The Claim Is Barred As A Matter Of Law

Claims Or Defenses Not Defended In Opposition To Dispositive Motion Are Abandoned — No Abuse Of Discretion To Deny Leave To Amend Where Request Is Conclusory And Requested Only In Brief

RICO: Because Cannabis Is Illegal Under Federal Law, Damage To It Is Not Injury To Business Or Property Within 18 USC 1964(c)

Rule 16(f) And 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Fifth Circuit Factors For (i) Case-Ending Sanctions, (ii) 37(b)(2) Sanctions Generally, (iii) Expert Exclusion And (iv) Failure To Designate Or Disclose Witness Testimony — Preclusion, Including Exclusion Of Experts, Is Not As Drastic As Dismissal or Default — The Fact That Preclusion May Have The Legal Consequence Of Dismissal Does Not Affect The Appropriateness Of The Sanction — If Preclusion Is An Appropriate Sanction, It Is Unlikely to Be Reversed Even If It Results In Dismissal

Purposes Of Rule 37 Sanctions — Non-Exclusive Factors Guiding Exercise Of Discretion As To Whether And To What Extent To Impose Rule 37 Sanctions — Deeming Facts Admitted Requires Proof Of Willfulness, Bad Faith Or Culpability (2d Cir.) — Non-Compliance Is Willful When Order Is Clear And Understood, And Non-Compliance Is Not Due To Factors Beyond The Party’s Control — Contempt Standards And Burdens Or Proof Under Rule 37

First Impression — Removal — Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand Orders: Notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Court of Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Review Remand Order Citing §1447(e) Where That Statute Is Not Actually The Basis of The Order But Prudential Considerations (Abstention) Are— § 1447(e) Cannot Serve As A Basis To Remand If The Plaintiff Is Not Seeking To Add A Party Whose Joinder Would Destroy Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Discovery Violations Should Ordinarily Be Punished Under Rules 26(g) And 37, Not Inherent Power — Sanctions Should Be Tailored Because Violations Occur Along A Continuum of Fault — Three-Factor Test to Determine Whether Sanctions For Non-Production Are Apt (Second Circuit) — Producing Some Relevant Documents Is No Excuse For Not Producing All/Producing Drafts Does Not Excuse Nonproduction of Finals (Good Quote) — There Is No Carve-Out From The Duty To Produce For Publicly-Filed Information (Good Quote) — Duty To Produce Includes Subsequently-Created Documents (Documents Created After Discovery Response) — Factors In Choosing The Appropriate Sanction — Purposes Of Discovery Sanctions — Proportionality: Need for Sanction to Be Tailored to Remedy the Prejudice Suffered

Matter of First Impression vs. Baseless Position (Good Quote)

The Answer to a Question of First Impression Is Rarely “Plain”

Administrative Closure of A Case Is A Tool of Docket Management Outside the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Used to Shelve A Pending But Dormant Matter —District Court Order Administratively Closing A Case Is Not An Appealable Final Order, But An Order Denying A Motion to Reopen Is — “A Case Is Deemed To Be Final When A District Court Disassociates Itself From A Case” (Good Quote) — Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) Does Not Confer Authority to Dismiss A Case; Other Power Must Be Invoked — Rule 41(b) Dismissal: Sixth Circuit Factors

Archives

New York Office

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