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

Greg Joseph

Inherent Power Sanctions – Extrajudicial Misconduct: 1. Unilaterally obtaining $300 million arbitration award, absent an arbitration agreement or notice to adversary, is sanctionable even though it precedes commencement of bad faith attempt to confirm award in federal court. 2. District Court retained jurisdiction to rule on sanctions motion filed prior to notice of appeal of decision vacating arbitration award. 3. FRAP 38 appellate sanctions denied for failure to make separate motion.

Matios v. City of Loveland, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15749 (10th Cir. June 23, 2023) (unpublished) Eyoel-Dawit Matios, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions under its inherent powers. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions for (1) Filing Brief Generated by AI (ChatGPT) Filled with Fake and Nonsensical Cases, (2) Failing to Confirm the Authenticity of the Cases, (3) Failing to Make Any Inquiry to Determine If the Assertions of Law Were Correct, (4) Advocating for The Fake Cases After Being Informed by Adversary That the Cases Could Not Be Found, (5) Lying to the Court About Why Continuance Needed and Role of AI in Research — Conscious Avoidance Sufficient to Prove Knowledge —$5,000 Non-Compensatory Penalty Assessed — Offenders Must Notify Client and Judges Wrongly Named in the Fake Cases—“Nothing Inherently Improper About Using a Reliable Artificial Intelligence Tool for Assistance”

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108263 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions for (1) Filing Brief Generated by AI (ChatGPT) Filled with Fake and Nonsensical Cases, (2) Failing to Confirm the Authenticity of …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Clear-and-Convincing-Evidence Required (10th Circuit) — Evidence Rules Do Not Govern Sanctions Proceedings — Civil Rules Do Not Recognize a “Motion to Reconsider” As Opposed to Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, Which Requires “Manifest Error” or New Evidence — Abuse of Discretion Review (But Invocation of Inherent Power Is Reviewed De Novo (See Dissent)) — For Reversal, Appellate Court Must Be “Firmly Convinced … the District Court Erred in Finding … It Was Highly Probable That the [Offender] Acted in Bad Faith“ — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Witness Intimidation by Commencing Multimillion Dollar Arbitration Against Witness — Inherent Power Sanction Within District Court’s Jurisdiction When Acting Pursuant to a Strictly Limited Remand (Dissent Disagrees) — Sanctions for Arbitration Conduct Permissible Where Arbitration Threatened Court’s Proceedings — Permissible for Court to Evaluate Frivolousness of Claims in the Arbitration — Frivolousness, Alone, May Not Be Enough — Due Process Satisfied by Show-Cause Order — Monetary Award Was Civil Because It Was Limited to Fees Incurred in Federal Court Seeking Sanctions, Not Conduct in Arbitration— Fact Witness Intimidation Fails Does Not Negate Causation of Costs Incurred in Pursuing Sanctions — Failure to Reduce Requested Fees Does Not Mean Court Failed to Exercise Discretion

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20430 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* *1 Lynn Becker and the Ute Indian Tribe have been mired in litigation for nearly two decades. Mr. Becker’s relationship with…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanction of Dismissal for Repeatedly Obstructing 30(b)(6) Deposition, Flouting Court Orders: “[A] Splash of Proper Conduct Amidst an Expansive Sea of Impropriety Is Insufficient to Save [a Party] from Sanctions” — CFPB Enforcement Action Dismissed

Consumer Fin’l Prot. Bur. v. Brown, 69 F.4th 1321 (11th Cir. 2023); The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is not exempt from the rules of discovery. Nonetheless, the CFPB tried to bring a wide-ranging civil lawsuit against 18 defendants without…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Award of Excess Expenses Incurred in Deposing Late-Disclosed Expert Witness on Eve of Trial — Argument That Late Disclosure = Harmless Error Because Same Expenses Would Have Been Incurred Earlier Rejected — Late Disclosure “Made The Matter Much More Urgent, Time Consuming And Expensive As Trial Loomed Less Than A Month Away”

McDowell v. Livonia Hotel Bus., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17819 (6th Cir. July 11, 2023): This civil suit arises out of an armed robbery that took place at a motel in Livonia, Michigan. Plaintiffs, Raymond McDowell and Taj Dorsey,…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 and Inherent Power Sanctions – While Sanctions Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, District Court’s Invocation of Its Inherent Power Is Reviewed De Novo — Due Process Violated by Failure to Apprise Individuals that They Were Personally at Risk of Monetary Sanctions—That Sanctions Motion Sought Sanctions Against Corporation “Or Others” Insufficient — Post-Sanctions Opportunity to Be Heard Insufficient — Rule 37 Sanctions Must Be Both “Just” and “Related to the Particular ‘Claim’” — Factors Governing Litigation-Ending Sanctions (5th Circuit) — 6. What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment —6. What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment — What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment — Recklessness Insufficient for Case-Ending Sanction (Bad Faith Required) — Rule 37 Authorizes Joint-and-Several Liability on a Party and Its Agents —Attorney’s Fee Award Must be Calculated Using the Lodestar Process

CEATS, Inc. v. TicketNetwork, Inc., 71 F.4th 413 (5th Cir. 2023):  Opinion This consolidated appeal concerns the injunctive and monetary sanctions that the district court imposed after a company and three individuals violated the court’s protective order. The company and…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Improper Purpose — Even If Paper Filed Not Only to Vindicate Rights But Also for Some Other Purpose, Sanctions Inappropriate Unless the Other Purpose Is Undertaken in Bad Faith and Is So Excessive As to Eliminate A Proper Purpose

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19300 (4th Cir. July 27, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM: *1 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: § 1927 Authorizes Only Fees Incurred “Because of” Sanctionable Conduct, Not Fees Merely Related to It — Where Responsive Brief Fails to Make Necessary Disclosure Necessitating Reply, All Costs Associated with Reply Are Awardable, Not Merely Portions Specifically Prompted by Improper Non-Disclosure — Party Appealing § 1927 Sanctions Bears Burden of Showing Error in Fee — Setting Fees Is A Matter of Rough Justice and Should Not Result in Second Major Litigation — Where Time Records Excusably Imprecise Due to Unawareness of Misconduct, Rough Estimate of Fees Allocable to Misconduct Suffices — Fees Reimbursed by Insurance Still “Incurred” Within, And Awardable under § 1927 — Law of The Case Doctrine Inapplicable, Even If Same Issue Involved, Where Different Legally Relevant Factors Are Under Consideration Or Facts Are Different

Chung v. Lamb, 73 F.4th 824 (10th Cir. 2023): After a prior remand to the district court, we review the propriety of that court’s revised award of attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits monetary sanction when…
Continue Reading
Previous18192021222324Next

Recent Articles

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice