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 LEXIS 15749 (10th Cir. June 23, 2023) (unpublished) Eyoel-Dawit Matios, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions under its inherent powers.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

Spoliation Sanctions: Rule 37(e)(2)’s Intent-To-Deprive Standard Is The Same Bad Faith Standard Historically Applied In Pre- Rule 37 Spoliation Cases And Still Applied In Cases Of Non-Electronic Spoliation — Prejudice To The Defendant Need Not Be Shown Under Rule 37(b)(2) — Even Though Litigation Hold Issued, Bad Faith Reasonable Inferred From Failing To (i) Back Up Text Messages, (ii) Educate Recipients About Litigation Hold, (iii) Collect Cell Phone Data For 7 Months, And (iv) Suspend Policy Of Wiping Data — No Affirmative Act Is Required To Sustain A Finding Of Bad Faith Based On Circumstantial Evidence, Either Under Rule 37(e) Or Bad Faith Case Law

Skanska United States Civil Se. Inc. v. Bagelheads, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19942 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2023): *1 Hurricane Sally hit Pensacola Bay with a vengeance in September 2020, and 28 barges moored in the Bay were not…
Continue Reading
Previous26272829303132Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice