Joseph Hage Aaronson

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Disclose Corp. Officer Would Give Expert Testimony — Fact Adversary Knew He’d Testify Doesn’t Eliminate Prejudice — Rule 13(a): Counterclaim Is Compulsory Only If It Existed When Complaint Filed

Karum Holdings LLC v. Lowe's Cos., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19269 (7th Cir. July 13, 2018): When Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's Inc.) expanded its retail home improvement stores into Mexico, Lowe's Companies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Lowe's…

Appellate Jurisdiction — Even Though Motion to Reconsider Tolls Time to Appeal Until It’s Decided, It Does Not Extend Time If Made & Resolved before Judgment Entered — No Penalty or Benefit from Prematurely Filing Post-Judgment Motion

Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15367 (9th Cir. June 7, 2018): This appeal is the latest in an ongoing and bizarre dispute between Havensight Capital LLC (Havensight) and Nike, Inc. (Nike). Throughout these proceedings, …

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court Can Take Judicial Notice of the Fact That Search Engines Index Web Content and Dynamically Return Relevant Search Results in Response to User-Entered Search Terms

Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104510, 2018 WL 3067985 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018): Plaintiff Brian K. Carter brings this trademark infringement action against Defendant Oath Holdings, Inc. Compl., ECF 1-1. Defendant filed a motion…

§1782: Sworn Statement of Intent to File Foreign Criminal Complaint Satisfies “Foreign Tribunal” Requirement, Ability to Inject Evidence = “For Use” & Makes Movant Interested Party, As Does Circumscribed Ability to Appeal

In re Furstenberg Fin. SAS & Marc Bataillon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116391 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018): Furstenberg Finance SAS and Marc Bataillon (together, the "petitioners") have applied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, for an order for…

While Court Has Jurisdiction under §1782 over Counsel in District Holding Docs/Discovery of Foreign Client, It Is Abuse of Discretion to Order Production — Would Undermine Client/Counsel Confidentiality — Importance of Protective Orders

Kiobel v. Cravath, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18755 (2d Cir. July 10 2018): Petitioner-Appellee Esther Kiobel filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to subpoena documents under 28 U.S.C. § …

RICO Standing: Only the Bankruptcy Estate Has Post-Petition Standing to Assert RICO Claims That Accrued Prior to Plaintiff’s Filing Bankruptcy Proceedings

In re Beckford, 2018 WL 3323347 (2d Cir. July 6, 2018): SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Alman Beckford, pro se, filed for bankruptcy in 2013. After Appellee Bayview Loan Services, LLC (“Bayview”) moved to lift the automatic stay to continue foreclosure proceedings,…

Civil Contempt against Non-Party Immediately Appealable — “More Rigorous” Abuse of Discretion Review — Civil Contempt Factors — Compensatory Sanctions Vesting Securities in Injured Party Civil Where Offender Could Moot Them by Paying Jmt

Weston Capital Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK, 2018 WL 3098820 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018) (non-precedential): SUMMARY ORDER *1 Petitioner-Appellant Weston Capital Advisors, Inc., along with ten affiliated corporate Appellants (“the Weston entities”) and its principal, Appellant John…

Summary Judgment Evidence: Party Facing Objection on Admissibility Need Only Explain Admissible Form Anticipated at Trial — SJ Opponent Must Present More Than Scintilla of Evidence to Establish Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Gonzalez v. Hospitality, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112707 (M.D. Tenn. July 6, 2018): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Embassy Suites has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12), to which Sandy Brito Gonzalez has filed…

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions Must Be (1) Just & (2) Specifically Related to Claim at Issue in Discovery — Court Can’t Create New Federal Law of Veil-Piercing But Can Preclude Claims/Draw Adverse Inference to Get There — If Rules Enough, No IHP

Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., 2018 WL 3293212 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018): *1 In this unusual case, Appellant Clientron Corp. is actually the prevailing party below and holds a judgment against Appellee Devon IT, Inc. worth over $7…

Sanctions: §285 Exceptional Case Fees Awarded from Date of Rule 11 Safe Harbor Letter / Motion, Expert Costs Awarded under Inherent Power against Pro Se for Refusing to Hire Needed Counsel, Acting in Bad Faith

Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15571 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2018): Per Curiam. Appellant Xiaohua Huang, proceeding pro se, appeals several rulings from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Disclose Corp. Officer Would Give Expert Testimony — Fact Adversary Knew He’d Testify Doesn’t Eliminate Prejudice — Rule 13(a): Counterclaim Is Compulsory Only If It Existed When Complaint Filed

Appellate Jurisdiction — Even Though Motion to Reconsider Tolls Time to Appeal Until It’s Decided, It Does Not Extend Time If Made & Resolved before Judgment Entered — No Penalty or Benefit from Prematurely Filing Post-Judgment Motion

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court Can Take Judicial Notice of the Fact That Search Engines Index Web Content and Dynamically Return Relevant Search Results in Response to User-Entered Search Terms

§1782: Sworn Statement of Intent to File Foreign Criminal Complaint Satisfies “Foreign Tribunal” Requirement, Ability to Inject Evidence = “For Use” & Makes Movant Interested Party, As Does Circumscribed Ability to Appeal

While Court Has Jurisdiction under §1782 over Counsel in District Holding Docs/Discovery of Foreign Client, It Is Abuse of Discretion to Order Production — Would Undermine Client/Counsel Confidentiality — Importance of Protective Orders

RICO Standing: Only the Bankruptcy Estate Has Post-Petition Standing to Assert RICO Claims That Accrued Prior to Plaintiff’s Filing Bankruptcy Proceedings

Civil Contempt against Non-Party Immediately Appealable — “More Rigorous” Abuse of Discretion Review — Civil Contempt Factors — Compensatory Sanctions Vesting Securities in Injured Party Civil Where Offender Could Moot Them by Paying Jmt

Summary Judgment Evidence: Party Facing Objection on Admissibility Need Only Explain Admissible Form Anticipated at Trial — SJ Opponent Must Present More Than Scintilla of Evidence to Establish Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions Must Be (1) Just & (2) Specifically Related to Claim at Issue in Discovery — Court Can’t Create New Federal Law of Veil-Piercing But Can Preclude Claims/Draw Adverse Inference to Get There — If Rules Enough, No IHP

Sanctions: §285 Exceptional Case Fees Awarded from Date of Rule 11 Safe Harbor Letter / Motion, Expert Costs Awarded under Inherent Power against Pro Se for Refusing to Hire Needed Counsel, Acting in Bad Faith

Recent Articles

§ 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?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Archives

New York Office