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

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

Vartan HK Int’l Funds Invs. USA Ltd., LLC v. Paul Hastings LLP (In re Kwok), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5726 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the judgment of the District Court entered on…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Successful Dershowitz Appeal in Election Case — (1) Ninth Circuit Splits with Sixth Holding (2-1) All Signers of a Court Paper Are Liable for Everything in It, Even If They Can Prove They Had No Role in the Sanctionable Portions (Ed. Ques.: (i) How Did They “Violate[] The Rule” (Rule 11(c)(2))? (ii) Why Does Reasonableness Require Every Lawyer to Read Every Allegation? (iii) Why Can’t They Or Their Clients Allocate Work? (iv) How Are Limited-Role, Innocent Lawyers “Responsible for the Violation” (Rule 11(c)(2))?)) — (2) Goodyear v. Haeger Doesn’t Allow Innocent Lawyers to Prove They Did Not Cause Any Damages (Ed.: Majority Conflates Basis for Seeking Fees with Defense to Fees) — (3) From Concurrence: Duties of Local Counsel (n. 3)

Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6012 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 2”)  (Dershowitz Sanctions Reversal): [Majority] Opinion GOULD, Circuit Judge: “Of counsel” attorney for Plaintiffs, Alan Dershowitz, appeals the district court’s award of sanctions under Federal …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions — Jurisdiction to Sanction Survives Demise of Case — Rule 11 Sanctions Require Both a Baseless Pleading And an Unreasonable Inquiry (The Latter of Which May Be Inferable from the Former) — Amount of Time Available Affects Analysis of What Investigation Is Reasonable — Meaning of “Bad Faith” for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6015 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 1”) (Lead Counsel Sanctions): [Majority] OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: *2 Lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Andrew D. Parker and Kurt Olsen (collectively, “Lead Attorneys”), appeal…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal — Abuse of Discretion Review Is “More Exacting” When Judge is “Accuser, Fact Finder and Sentencing Judge All in One” — Client Responsible for Her Lawyer’s Discovery Defalcations — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing When Sanctions Based Entirely on an Established Record — Lesser Sanctions Reasonably Determined to be Ineffective Given Record of Repeated Discovery Abuses

Abbott Labs. v. H&H Wholesale Servs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24436 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished):   *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants H&H…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Fabrication of Evidence and Lying about It to the Court — 2-Part Test for Dismissal Sanction (Eleventh Circuit) — Whether Fraud on Court Was Committed for the Court, Not a Jury

Frazier v. Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24682 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Cedrick and Tamara Frazier appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their medical malpractice suit against Southeast Georgia Health System,…
Continue Reading
Previous123456Next

Recent Articles

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

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

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