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

(1) Party May Simultaneously Claim Privilege And Dispute Document’s Authenticity; (2) No Per Se Waiver Rule When Privilege Log Is Not Produced; (3) Fact Opponent Actually Possesses Challenged Documents Significantly Affects Log Analysis; (4) Inherent Power Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Factors

Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30921 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (unpublished):  MEMORANDUM* In 2010, Defendant-Appellee Cristiano Ronaldo (“Ronaldo”) settled a sexual assault claim made against him by Plaintiff-Appellant Kathryn Mayorga (“Mayorga”). The matter lay dormant until…
Continue Reading

Appeals: “When A District Court Lists Several Reasons For Taking A Certain Action, And One Of The Reasons Is Flawed, The District Court’s Decision Should Still Be Upheld If Other Reasons Support The Ruling” (Good Quote)

Baker v. Meiling, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):   MEMORANDUM* Appellants—a [*3]  proposed class of elderly investors in a metal-coatings company—appeal from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to Appellees and sanctioning…
Continue Reading

(1) Diversity Jurisdiction: Allegations of Residency May Be Corrected by Letter to Establish Citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1653; (2) Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Excluding Expert Report — Fifth Circuit Factors; (3) Rule of Orderliness: One Panel May Not Overturn Another’s Decision Absent Intervening Change in Law; (4) Modest Prejudice from Late Expert Disclosure Sufficient to Sustain Exclusion; (5) Defaulting Party’s Refusal to Consent to Adjournment of Expert Deadlines Properly Considered in Exclusion Analysis; (6) Good Quote: “Because Of A Trial Court’s Need To Control Its Docket, A Party’s Violation Of The Court’s Scheduling Order Should Not Routinely Justify A Continuance”

Stewart v. Gruber, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33127 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Plaintiffs1 appeal from two interrelated district court orders: (1) the exclusion of their expert’s reports and testimony, [*2]  and (2) the grant…
Continue Reading

Rule 37/Contempt/Dismissal Discovery Sanctions: (1) Magistrate Judge Must Refer Contempt Charges to District Court Except When Exercising Consent Jurisdiction; (2) Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault; (3) Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit); (4) Fees And Expenses For Entire Deposition OK Where Party So Obstructed Deposition As To Render It Entirely Useless Because Case Dismissed — District Judge Not Required to Further Apportion Fees and Expenses for Obstructed Part

Xingfei Luo v. Paul Wang, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32882 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge *1 Xingfei Luo brought this action against Paul Wang asserting various defamation-related claims. After a magistrate …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 & The PSLRA: (1) Sanctions Order Is Not Appealable Until The Award Amount of the Award (The Relief) Is Finalized; (2) Issue Abandoned on Appeal by Failing to Provide Supporting Arguments Explaining Error; (3) Rule 11 Sanctions Under PSLRA Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion; (4) PSLRA Requires District Court to Make Findings As to Each Party’s and Each Attorney’s Compliance with Rule 11(b); (5) PSLRA Mandates Presumptive Award of Attorney’s Fees If Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 11(b); (6) Presumption Rebutted by Proof the Award (a) Would Impose Unreasonable Burden on Plaintiff, (b) Would Be Unjust; (c) If Not Entered, Would Not Impose A Greater Burden on the Aggrieved Party; or (d) The Violation of Rule 11(b) Was De Minimis; (7) Even If Presumption Rebutted, Court Must Award Other Appropriate Sanctions

Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32938 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Scott Meide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders imposing sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Under FRAP 38, Counsel Alone May Be Sanctioned for a Frivolous Appeal — Knowledge of Frivolousness Properly Imputed from Prior Cases Handled by Counsel — $5,000 Financial Sanction Ordered Paid to Opponent (No Discussion of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017))

Uyanik v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31642 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* Appellant Ali Uyanik appeals1 from the district court’s order dismissing his First Amended Complaint against Appellee Wawanesa General Insurance Company…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions: (1) Party Is Entitled to Notice of the Sanctions Power Under Consideration, Reasons Sanctions Are Being Considered, and the Form of Potential Sanctions; (2) Nonetheless, Sanctions Will Be Upheld Absent Explicit Notice of the Precise Legal Authority Relied On Where The Record Shows There Was Notice of The Sanctionable Conduct and The Factors The Court Would Consider — Here, Effectively Notice of the Precise Power under Consideration; (3) Attendance at CLE Courses Is A Permissible Sanction

Med. Tech. Assocs. II Inc. v. Rausch, 2023 WL 8451222 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished) OPINION* Jonathan G. Graves appeals the District Court’s orders imposing sanctions against him. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s…
Continue Reading

(1) Judicial Estoppel — Third Circuit Factors — Bad Faith Required; (2) To Prove Bad Faith, Must Show (i) Culpable Behavior (ii) That Assaults The Dignity Or Authority Of The Court; (3) Earlier Inconsistent Position Must Have Been Accepted by the Court Because, Unlike Equitable Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel Focuses on the Court, Not the Opposing Party (Rare Exception to Success Requirement in Bankruptcy Context); (4) Generally, Defendants Have Flexibility in Asserting Positions in Early Stages of Litigation; (5) Judicial Estoppel (Like Inherent Power Sanctions)Appropriate Only If Sanctions Rules And Statutes Inadequate; (6) Good Quote: “The District Court Sought to Force a Square Peg into a Round Hole”

Pace-O-Matic, Inc. v. Eckert, Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30086 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION** Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC (“Eckert”), Hawke McKeon & Sniscak, LLP (“HMS”), and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Appealability: (1) Viability of Perlman Doctrine (Allowing Non-Party to Appeal Discovery Order) Is Unclear After Mohawk, But Party-Sought Review of Privilege Ruling Is Clearly Not Permitted; (2) Opinion Work Product Enjoys Nearly Absolute Immunity But Is Subject to Crime-Fraud Exception; (3) Crime Fraud Factors (4th Cir.): (i) Client Was Engaged In Or Planning Crime When Seeking Counsel, and (ii) The Privileged Materials Bear A Close Relationship to The Scheme; (4) Burden of Proof Less Than Preponderance — Simply Must Subject Opposing Party to Risk of Non-Persuasion If Unrebutted; (5) Client Waives Privilege By Testifying for Lawyer in Bar Proceedings; (6) Once Case Settled, Client’s Interest in Work Product Protection Is Not A Compelling Reason to Deny Discovery; (7) Good Quote: “Certainly, A District Court Does Not Clearly Err When Relying On Sworn Statements Over Negotiation-Driven Puffery”

Under Seal 1 v. United States (In re Subpoenas.), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31137 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023): Opinion Appellant John Doe is a medical malpractice attorney. While representing a client, Jane Roe, he engaged in settlement negotiations with…
Continue Reading
Previous11121314151617Next

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