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

Inherent Power Sanctions: (1) Court May Enter Dismissal on the Merits Even If It Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction — (2) Bad Faith or Willful Abuse of Judicial process Required in Fifth Circuit — (3) Opposing Party Need Not Be Prejudiced — (4) All Aspects of Inherent Power Sanctions Award, Including Invocation of Power, Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — (5) District Court Must Sufficiently Articulate Reasons for Sanctions Award

Ben. E. Keith Co. v. Dining All., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 24114 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023) Opinion *1 Although modern business entities may organize in complex ways unknown in the past, the criteria for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — (1) Deeming Facts Admitted for Violations of Discovery Orders by Corporate Defendants, Leading to Entry of Judgment Against Them and Associated Individual Defendant — (2) May Issue Both Case-Terminating and Financial Sanctions for Same Discovery Misconduct (Concealing Financial Information) — 9th Circuit Factors for Terminating Sanctions

URS Holdings, Inc. v. Topolewski, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 24660, 2023 WL 6058825 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Defendant Gary Topolewski and Defendants Morrison Knudsen Corporation, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Morrison-Knudsen Services, Inc., and Morrison-Knudsen International…
Continue Reading

Even If Statutory Basis for Injunction Is Later Withdrawn by Supreme Court, That Does Not Excuse Contempt, Which The District Court Has Inherent Power to Sanction (Here, By a $40 Million Fine)

FTC v. Nat’l Urological Grp., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22823 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023): Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jared Wheat, and Stephen Smith appeal the district court’s denial of their request for relief from contempt sanctions. Nearly twenty years…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Fees Incurred Because of the Violation, Including Fees Incurred in Bringing the Sanctions Motion, Are Recoverable Even If They Are Covered by Insurance — Res Judicata vs Claim-Splitting (The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation): Unlike Res Judicata, Which Requires A Final Judgment, The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation Permits Dismissal of a Duplicative Action While the First Case Remains Pending — A Judicial Determination That A Proposed Amendment to A Complaint Would Be Futile Operates As A Ruling on The Merits

Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22431 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023) *1 Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appeals an order of the district court* sanctioning him and his co-counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Mistake — A Colorable But Erroneous Argument — Is Not Properly Sanctioned under FRAP 38 — (2) FRAP 38 Particularly Apt When Losing Party in Arbitration Is Using Frivolous Arguments to Delay Collection of Award

Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4th 1099 (7th Cir. 2023) Opinion [*1101] An arbitrator rejected Donald Kinsella’s claim that his employer, Baker Hughes, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate him after he suffered…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions for failure to disclose pursuant to Rule 26(a) — (1) Party facing Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Bears Burden of Proving Her Violations Were Substantially Justified or Harmless — (2) Ninth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test for Determining Whether Violation Is Harmless — (3) Parties Not Excused from Making Rule 26(a) Disclosures Simply Because They Don’t Have All Evidence — Must Disclose and Later Supplement — (4) When Rule 37(c)(1) Sanction Will Be Dispositive, Court Must Consider (a) Willfulness, Fault, Bad Faith and (b) Availability of Lesser Sanctions (9th Cir. Requirements) — (5) Court Is Required to Consider Lesser Sanctions Under Rule 37(c)(1) Only If Asked to Do So

Gryglak v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. May 4, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 Edyta Gryglak (“Gryglak”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as trustee for Wells…
Continue Reading
Previous13141516171819Next

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