Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Joseph Hage Aaronson
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Greg Joseph

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

Lewis v. M&T Bank, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596, 2022 WL 775758 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

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

Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420, 2023 WL 3739095 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.   *1…
Continue Reading

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

Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64562, 2023 WL 2919559 (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2023) (Report and Recommendation): *1 This is an action for unpaid wages and other violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and…
Continue Reading

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

LeChase Constr. Servs., LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2023) Argonaut Insurance Company [*3]  (“Argonaut”) appeals from an order of the district court (Wolford, J.) remanding this breach-of-bond action, brought by LeChase …
Continue Reading

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

AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49913, 2023 WL 2612204 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023): INTRODUCTION Over the course of the long history of this case, Plaintiffs maintained that they held patents issued in both …
Continue Reading

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

Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6006 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023): District courts, it is broadly accepted, enjoy tremendous freedom in managing their caseload. That flexibility stems in part from the fact that no two district…
Continue Reading
1234Next

Recent Articles

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
Joseph Hage Aaronson

New York Office

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