Joseph Hage Aaronson

Supreme Court: Class Actions — Plaintiffs Denied Certification Can’t Voluntarily Dismiss Individual Claims to Appeal Certification & Revive Their Claims If They Win — Must Try the Case — Rule 23(f) Is Sole Avenue for Interlocutory Review

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3721 (U.S. June 12, 2017): This case concerns options open to plaintiffs, when denied class-action [*7] certification by a district court, to gain appellate review of the district court's order. Orders granting or…

Rule 41(b) Dismissal of Claim Asserted by Corporation Not Represented by Counsel Proper — Corp. Must Be Represented — In C.D. Cal., Same Applies to LLCs under Local Rule

Bourbeau v. Cogntive Code Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8444 (9th Cir. May 11, 2017): AMENDED MEMORANDUM* * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiffs-Appellants John Bourbeau,…

Rule 11 Sanctions — Empty Head, Pure Heart Defense Fails — Reasonable Assessment of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Bar Required — Motive Behind Rule 11 Motion Irrelevant [Improper Purpose Impossible?]

Clemmons v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3797 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017): * These consolidated appeals were ordered submitted on the briefs on October 20, 2016. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under…

RICO Limitations: If Storm Warnings, Plaintiff Must Show It “Exercised Due Diligence But Couldn’t Find and Avoid the Storm” (Good Quote) — Can a Lawsuit Be a Predicate Act? — It Won’t Revive Claim by Attaching Out-of-Time Fraudulent Documents

Hawk Mountain LLC v. Ram Capital Grp. LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8492 (3d Cir. May 12, 2017): * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In…

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction—Abuse of Discretion: Less Deference If “Unaccompanied by Reasoning” (Good Quotes) —Different Injns on Similarly Situated Parties, 1 Harsher Than Sought, Reversed

In re Ross, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10004 (3d Cir. June 6, 2017): Raymond Ross appeals from a broad filing injunction issued against him by the Bankruptcy Court after he and his wife used the bankruptcy process to stave off …

RICO: Marijuana Growing=Predicate Act—Business Is Primarily Criminal—RICO Incorporates Common Law of Nuisance—Adjacent Property Plausibly Injured by Odors, Openly Criminal Acts—How “Concrete” Must Injury Be? Is There a Circuit Split?

Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10101 (10th Cir. June 7, 2017): These three appeals arise from two cases that concern the passage, implementation, and alleged effects of Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution, Colo. Const. art. …

RICO: If Enterprise’s Business Is Primarily Racketeering Activity (e.g., Crime Family), Horizontal Relatedness Shown by Linking Acts to Enterprise — Otherwise, HJ Factors Must Be Applied

Reich v. Lopez, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9172 (2d Cir. May 26, 2017): Plaintiff-Appellant Otto J. Reich is the principal of a (co-plaintiff) consulting firm specializing, inter alia, in fighting government corruption. He alleges that he and his firm were…

Inherent Power Sanctions Apt in Court 1 for Wasting Judicial Resources by Litigating Claims Party Knows Court 2 Has Enjoined — Litigants Are Not Their Opponents’ Keepers (Good Quote) — Dismissal, $1.29 MM in Fees Excessive

In re Jemsek Clinic, PA (Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC v. Jemsek Clinic, PA), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3853 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017): In this case, the bankruptcy court imposed staggering sanctions on a creditor. It dismissed with …

Rule 37 Sanctions for Spoliation — Default Judgment — Bad Faith Shown by Use of Cleansing Programs, Misrepresentations to the Court, Email Saying “They Were Supposed to Be Erased by the IT Department”

Organik Kimya v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2623 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2017): Organik Kimya San. ve Tic., A.[#x15e]., Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V., and Organik Kimya US, Inc. (collectively, "Organik Kimya") appeal from the International Trade Commission's …

Facebook Authentication — Page Authenticated as Defendant’s by Fact It Bears His Name (Misspelled), Photo, and Name of His Gang — 404(b) Not Implicated by Photo of Defendant Holding Gun Where Access to Gun at Issue — A Photo Is Not Hearsay

People v. Pettes, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 881 (Mich. Ct. App. May 25, 2017): Per Curiam. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Supreme Court: Class Actions — Plaintiffs Denied Certification Can’t Voluntarily Dismiss Individual Claims to Appeal Certification & Revive Their Claims If They Win — Must Try the Case — Rule 23(f) Is Sole Avenue for Interlocutory Review

Rule 41(b) Dismissal of Claim Asserted by Corporation Not Represented by Counsel Proper — Corp. Must Be Represented — In C.D. Cal., Same Applies to LLCs under Local Rule

Rule 11 Sanctions — Empty Head, Pure Heart Defense Fails — Reasonable Assessment of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Bar Required — Motive Behind Rule 11 Motion Irrelevant [Improper Purpose Impossible?]

RICO Limitations: If Storm Warnings, Plaintiff Must Show It “Exercised Due Diligence But Couldn’t Find and Avoid the Storm” (Good Quote) — Can a Lawsuit Be a Predicate Act? — It Won’t Revive Claim by Attaching Out-of-Time Fraudulent Documents

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction—Abuse of Discretion: Less Deference If “Unaccompanied by Reasoning” (Good Quotes) —Different Injns on Similarly Situated Parties, 1 Harsher Than Sought, Reversed

RICO: Marijuana Growing=Predicate Act—Business Is Primarily Criminal—RICO Incorporates Common Law of Nuisance—Adjacent Property Plausibly Injured by Odors, Openly Criminal Acts—How “Concrete” Must Injury Be? Is There a Circuit Split?

RICO: If Enterprise’s Business Is Primarily Racketeering Activity (e.g., Crime Family), Horizontal Relatedness Shown by Linking Acts to Enterprise — Otherwise, HJ Factors Must Be Applied

Inherent Power Sanctions Apt in Court 1 for Wasting Judicial Resources by Litigating Claims Party Knows Court 2 Has Enjoined — Litigants Are Not Their Opponents’ Keepers (Good Quote) — Dismissal, $1.29 MM in Fees Excessive

Rule 37 Sanctions for Spoliation — Default Judgment — Bad Faith Shown by Use of Cleansing Programs, Misrepresentations to the Court, Email Saying “They Were Supposed to Be Erased by the IT Department”

Facebook Authentication — Page Authenticated as Defendant’s by Fact It Bears His Name (Misspelled), Photo, and Name of His Gang — 404(b) Not Implicated by Photo of Defendant Holding Gun Where Access to Gun at Issue — A Photo Is Not Hearsay

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