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

Joseph Hage Aaronson

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

In re Abbott Labs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5755, 96 F.4th 371 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2024) INTRODUCTION The underlying litigation in the matter before us sounds in patent and antitrust law. What we are presented with here, however, …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Retained Expert for Failure to Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Factors (Sixth Circuit) — The Importance of The Evidence Factor Cuts Both Ways: “The More Important The Proof, The Greater The Effect Of Preclusion, But Also The Greater The Harm In Tardy Disclosure”

RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7938 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024): *1 This case involves the alleged infringement of a copyright on software code used in an industrial control system. This is the third…
Continue Reading

(1) Bankruptcy Courts Have Only Civil Contempt Powers; (2) All Monetary Contempt Sanctions Must Be Civil — Designed Either to Coerce Compliance Or Compensate a Party for the Contemnor’s Violation, and Not Have As A Primary Purpose to Vindicate the Authority of the Bankruptcy Court Or Punish the Contemnor

Matter of Highland Capital Mgmt., LP (Charitable DAF Fund LP v. Highland Capital Mgmt., LP), 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8129, 2024 WL 1450065 (5th Cir Apr. 4, 2024): *1 A bankruptcy court held Appellants in civil contempt and ordered them…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction (VLI) Broadened to Bar Any Further Filings in Issuing District Court Due to Violation of Narrower VLI And Failure to Pay Monetary Sanctions

Am. Ass’n for Lab’y Accreditation, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8189 (7th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER* Robert Hutchinson appeals the district court’s order enforcing a filing bar against him. The district judge enforced the filing …
Continue Reading

(1) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Issue Against Recidivist Filer of Frivolous Claims for Filing Brief Consisting Mostly of Unsubstantiated Accusations; (2) Vexatious Litigant Injunction to Issue If Any Monetary Penalty Not Paid Promptly

Henry v. Hall, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8193 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024): ORDER Michael Henry sued several Illinois circuit and appellate judges, and the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that their actions in an ongoing state …
Continue Reading

(1) Post-Judgment Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Violates Safe Harbor, Precluding Any Rule 11 Award — (2) Judicial Speculation That Target Would Not Have Withdrawn the Offending Paper Even If Given the Opportunity Insufficient: “[A]ssumptions Do Not Excuse Compliance with the Text of Rule 11” (Good Quote) — (3) Citing Potential Rule 11 Violations in Summary Judgment Papers Insufficient — Rule 11 Motion Required: “Thus, Informal Notice Is Only A ‘Professional Courtesy’ … Not The Official Notice That Starts The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period” (Good Quote) — (4) Court Could Have Imposed Sanctions Sua Sponte under Rule 11(c)(3), § 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions

Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7890 (8th Cir. April 3, 2024): Attorney Gregory Leyh and his law firm were sanctioned by the district court pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 and Federal Rule of Civil …
Continue Reading

(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions (3d Cir.): Reasonableness, Not Bad Faith, Is The Standard — Implicitly Rejecting the 2d Cir.’s Akin-to-Contempt Standard — (2) Sua Sponte Sanctions Require Extra Care Because of The Absence of the 21-Day Safe Harbor — (3) Appealability — Even Absent a Reprimand Or Other Sanction, A Court’s Finding of Sanctionable Conduct Injures A Lawyer’s Reputation Sufficiently to Confer Standing to Appeal — (4) Even Though Intent Is Not Required to Violate Rule 11, It Is Relevant to the Decision Whether to Sanction And, If So, What Sanction to Impose — (5) Rule 11 Imposes a Duty of Candor And Is Violated by Not Only by Misrepresentations But Also by Misleading Statements, Half-Truths, Inconsistencies, Mischaracterizations, Exaggerations, Omissions, Evasions And Failures to Correct Known Misimpressions — (6) Candor Is Critical in Ex Parte and Non-Adversarial Proceedings Where Both Sides Agree — (7) “Mild Sanctions” — Requiring an Apology in Writing And Ordering Better Conduct in Similar Cases in the Future

Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, 95 F.4th 140 (3d Cir. 2024): Courts rely on lawyers’ honesty; lawyers may not mislead them. But the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office did just that.…
Continue Reading

Expert (702) vs. Lay Opinion (701) Testimony: “The Line Between Expert And Lay Testimony Is Not Always Sharp” (Good Quote) — Owner of New Business Not Allowed to Offer Lay Opinion As to Lost Future Profits Where Basis Extended Beyond Knowledge He Possessed Due to His Position in the Company (His Own Perception) And Beyond The Reasoning Process of an Average Person in Everyday Life — Sandbagging with Late Opinion: “The Proper Function Of Rebuttal Evidence Is To Contradict, Impeach Or Defuse The Impact Of The Evidence Offered By An Adverse Party” (Good Quote) — Where Opinion Being Rebutted Is Not Admitted, There Is Nothing to Rebut —“ The Duty To Supplement Cannot Be Transformed Into A Right To Ambush Just Before Trial” (Good Quote)

Chi. Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357, 94 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2024): This appeal presents a host of issues arising from an effort to prove lost profits for a business that…
Continue Reading

Right to File Motions, Pleadings, Appeals: Absent Extraordinary Circumstances, Like a History of Litigation Abuse Or Failure to Comply with Sanctions, a Court Has No Power to Prevent a Party from Filing Pleadings, Motions or Appeals — Construing Pre-Motion Letters As Motions OK for Non-Dispositive Motions Or Denial of Dispositive Motions — It Is Also OK If Dispositive Motion Is Predominantly Legal And Complaint Has Substantial Deficiencies — Granting Summary Judgment on Reconsideration of Prior Denial Based on Premotion Letters Only Reversed for Lack of Due Process

Kowalchuck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4533 94 F.4th 210 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2024): In this case, plaintiff-appellant John Kowalchuck sued his former employer, defendant-appellee Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act …
Continue Reading

Appeals: Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) Designating Judgment AND Any Judgment from Pending Post-Trial Motion Becomes Effective When Post-Trial Motion (e.g., Sanctions, Reconsideration) Is Decided BUT Is Effective Only As to the Designated Judgment — To Confer Appellate Jurisdiction Over Decision on Pending Motion. New Or Amended NOA Appealing from That Decision Is Necessary — Sometimes Other Documents Can Confer Appellate Jurisdiction (e.g., Docketing Statement) If Intent to Appeal Is Clear

Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6395 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024): *1 This case originates from a lending relationship between Plaintiffs—Jeffrey Frye and his companies The Wall Guy, Inc., and JR Contractors—and First State Bank (“the…
Continue Reading
Previous78910111213Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice