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

Rule 11: Ninth Circuit Appears to Frown on Incorporating into Rule 11 Motion Arguments Made in Another Pleading in Light of the Separate-Motion Requirement of Rule 11(c)(2)

Ortego v. Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community Club, Inc., 2018 WL 3045230 (9th Cir. June 20, 2018): MEMORANDUM* *1 1. The district court properly determined that the Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community Club, Inc. (LISECC) has continuing authority to govern…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Extrajudicial (Prelitigation) Misconduct — Stealing Documents — & Using Them in Lit. = Interference with Judicial Process — Dismissal Requires Clear and Convincing Evidence — No Warning Required in These Circs.

Xyngular v. Schenkel, 2018 WL 2208472 (10th Cir. May 15, 2018): *1 Marc Schenkel appeals the dismissal by the district court of his claims against Xyngular Corporation and various third parties as a sanction for abuse of what he claims…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power & §1927—Duty of Candor: Even If No Duty to Disclose, Denials of Authenticity of Doc While Hiding Client Has Copy Are Sanctionable — “The Effort to Chop Down a Few Trees Doesn’t Mean There’s No Forest” (Good Quote)

Six v. Generations Fed. Credit Union, 891 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2018): This appeal arises out of the district court’s order sanctioning three attorneys and their law firms under both its inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Finding…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: In Determining Foreign Law under Rule 44.1, Court Is Not Conclusively Bound by Foreign Gov’t’s Amicus Statement As to What the Law Is, But Must Carefully Consider It — Cautiously, If Circumstances So Indicate

Animal Sci. Prods. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3684, 2018 WL 2973745 (U.S. June 14, 2018): When foreign law is relevant to a case instituted in a federal court, and the foreign government whose law is …
Continue Reading

§1782 Discovery: Which Party Bears Burden of Proof on Intel Factors, Especially Receptivity of Foreign Tribunal to Sought Discovery? — Circuit Split — First Circuit: Neither Party

Schlich v. Broad Inst., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16668 (1st Cir. June 20, 2018): Petitioner-Appellant George W. Schlich, a patent agent for Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., appeals from the district court's denial of a petition for discovery under 28 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Merely Including Request in Brief Insufficient — Rule 60: 2 Types of Fraud: In Adversarial Process (1 Yr), On the Court (No Time Limit) — Missing Deadline: “He Simply Tripped over the Time Clock” (Good Quote)

Kennedy v. Schneider Elec., 2018 WL 3031074 (7th Cir. June 19, 2018): *1 In 2012, Bennie Kennedy filed a lawsuit against his longtime employer, Schneider Electric. In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment for Schneider Electric. More than a …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: American Pipe Tolls Statute of Limitations for Individual Actions But Not Later Class Action — Court Notes Difficulty in Assessing Largest Financial Interest for PSLRA Lead Plaintiff Purposes, Possibility of Aggregation

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3502 (U.S. June 11, 2018): This case concerns the tolling rule first stated in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538, 94 S. Ct. 756, …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 vs. 12(b)(6): While Court Credits Complaint on MTD, Not for Sanctions — “Sometimes a Litigant Makes Suspending Credibility … Difficult” (Good Quote) — Circuit Sustains Rule 11 Denial That “Could Be Reasonable” But Sanctions Per R. 38

Tobey v. Chibucos, 2018 WL 2210619 (7th Cir. May 15, 2018): *1 One man’s extradition is another man’s “kidnapping.” Edward Tobey, the plaintiff here, has three state-court convictions (one in Illinois and two in Florida) for possession of child pornography.…
Continue Reading

Subpoenas: Rule 45 Does Not Apply to Administrative Subpoenas, But Court Has Discretion under Rule 81 to Apply Some Or All of Rule 45 to Such Subpoenas

United States v. Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ & Exhibitors’ Ass’n, 2018 WL 1219313 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018): Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association (“TWHBEA”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for reimbursement of costs incurred…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Dismissal Requires Order, Willful Violation & Prejudice — Rule 41(b): Dismissal Requires Only Failure to Comply with Court Order & Considers Prejudice to Adversary or Court Only to a Lesser Extent

Burgett v. Gen. Store No. Two Inc., 2018 WL 1444200 (8th Cir. Mar. 23, 2018): *1 Charles Burgett appeals a judgment of the district court1 dismissing his civil rights action as a sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure …
Continue Reading
Previous100101102103104105106Next

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