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

(1) Diversity Jurisdiction: Allegations of Residency May Be Corrected by Letter to Establish Citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1653; (2) Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Excluding Expert Report — Fifth Circuit Factors; (3) Rule of Orderliness: One Panel May Not Overturn Another’s Decision Absent Intervening Change in Law; (4) Modest Prejudice from Late Expert Disclosure Sufficient to Sustain Exclusion; (5) Defaulting Party’s Refusal to Consent to Adjournment of Expert Deadlines Properly Considered in Exclusion Analysis; (6) Good Quote: “Because Of A Trial Court’s Need To Control Its Docket, A Party’s Violation Of The Court’s Scheduling Order Should Not Routinely Justify A Continuance”

Stewart v. Gruber, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33127 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Plaintiffs1 appeal from two interrelated district court orders: (1) the exclusion of their expert’s reports and testimony, [*2]  and (2) the grant…
Continue Reading

Rule 37/Contempt/Dismissal Discovery Sanctions: (1) Magistrate Judge Must Refer Contempt Charges to District Court Except When Exercising Consent Jurisdiction; (2) Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault; (3) Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit); (4) Fees And Expenses For Entire Deposition OK Where Party So Obstructed Deposition As To Render It Entirely Useless Because Case Dismissed — District Judge Not Required to Further Apportion Fees and Expenses for Obstructed Part

Xingfei Luo v. Paul Wang, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32882 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge *1 Xingfei Luo brought this action against Paul Wang asserting various defamation-related claims. After a magistrate …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 & The PSLRA: (1) Sanctions Order Is Not Appealable Until The Award Amount of the Award (The Relief) Is Finalized; (2) Issue Abandoned on Appeal by Failing to Provide Supporting Arguments Explaining Error; (3) Rule 11 Sanctions Under PSLRA Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion; (4) PSLRA Requires District Court to Make Findings As to Each Party’s and Each Attorney’s Compliance with Rule 11(b); (5) PSLRA Mandates Presumptive Award of Attorney’s Fees If Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 11(b); (6) Presumption Rebutted by Proof the Award (a) Would Impose Unreasonable Burden on Plaintiff, (b) Would Be Unjust; (c) If Not Entered, Would Not Impose A Greater Burden on the Aggrieved Party; or (d) The Violation of Rule 11(b) Was De Minimis; (7) Even If Presumption Rebutted, Court Must Award Other Appropriate Sanctions

Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32938 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Scott Meide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders imposing sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Under FRAP 38, Counsel Alone May Be Sanctioned for a Frivolous Appeal — Knowledge of Frivolousness Properly Imputed from Prior Cases Handled by Counsel — $5,000 Financial Sanction Ordered Paid to Opponent (No Discussion of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017))

Uyanik v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31642 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* Appellant Ali Uyanik appeals1 from the district court’s order dismissing his First Amended Complaint against Appellee Wawanesa General Insurance Company…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions: (1) Party Is Entitled to Notice of the Sanctions Power Under Consideration, Reasons Sanctions Are Being Considered, and the Form of Potential Sanctions; (2) Nonetheless, Sanctions Will Be Upheld Absent Explicit Notice of the Precise Legal Authority Relied On Where The Record Shows There Was Notice of The Sanctionable Conduct and The Factors The Court Would Consider — Here, Effectively Notice of the Precise Power under Consideration; (3) Attendance at CLE Courses Is A Permissible Sanction

Med. Tech. Assocs. II Inc. v. Rausch, 2023 WL 8451222 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished) OPINION* Jonathan G. Graves appeals the District Court’s orders imposing sanctions against him. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s…
Continue Reading

(1) Judicial Estoppel — Third Circuit Factors — Bad Faith Required; (2) To Prove Bad Faith, Must Show (i) Culpable Behavior (ii) That Assaults The Dignity Or Authority Of The Court; (3) Earlier Inconsistent Position Must Have Been Accepted by the Court Because, Unlike Equitable Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel Focuses on the Court, Not the Opposing Party (Rare Exception to Success Requirement in Bankruptcy Context); (4) Generally, Defendants Have Flexibility in Asserting Positions in Early Stages of Litigation; (5) Judicial Estoppel (Like Inherent Power Sanctions)Appropriate Only If Sanctions Rules And Statutes Inadequate; (6) Good Quote: “The District Court Sought to Force a Square Peg into a Round Hole”

Pace-O-Matic, Inc. v. Eckert, Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30086 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION** Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC (“Eckert”), Hawke McKeon & Sniscak, LLP (“HMS”), and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Appealability: (1) Viability of Perlman Doctrine (Allowing Non-Party to Appeal Discovery Order) Is Unclear After Mohawk, But Party-Sought Review of Privilege Ruling Is Clearly Not Permitted; (2) Opinion Work Product Enjoys Nearly Absolute Immunity But Is Subject to Crime-Fraud Exception; (3) Crime Fraud Factors (4th Cir.): (i) Client Was Engaged In Or Planning Crime When Seeking Counsel, and (ii) The Privileged Materials Bear A Close Relationship to The Scheme; (4) Burden of Proof Less Than Preponderance — Simply Must Subject Opposing Party to Risk of Non-Persuasion If Unrebutted; (5) Client Waives Privilege By Testifying for Lawyer in Bar Proceedings; (6) Once Case Settled, Client’s Interest in Work Product Protection Is Not A Compelling Reason to Deny Discovery; (7) Good Quote: “Certainly, A District Court Does Not Clearly Err When Relying On Sworn Statements Over Negotiation-Driven Puffery”

Under Seal 1 v. United States (In re Subpoenas.), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31137 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023): Opinion Appellant John Doe is a medical malpractice attorney. While representing a client, Jane Roe, he engaged in settlement negotiations with…
Continue Reading

Section 1927 Sanctions: (1) No Bad Faith Required—Intentionality or Knowing Disregard Suffice (Sixth Circuit); (2) Filing Complaint Collaterally Attacking Prior Appellate Decision Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplied the Proceedings; (3) Lump Sum Award of $5,000 under § 1927 Affirmed

Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29975 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM. Lucinda Jones, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment that dismissed her amended complaint against Circuit Judge David W. McKeague,…
Continue Reading
Previous19202122232425Next

Recent Articles

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

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