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: Finding of Willfulness ≠ Finding of Subjective Bad Faith — Due Process Requires Notice of Precise Rule, Standard or Law The Lawyer Allegedly Violated And How The Lawyer Allegedly Violated It

Baker v. 3M Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13339 (11th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) *1 This is an appeal from the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions against attorneys Kimberly O. Branscome and Jay L. Bhimani. At the conclusion…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Sanctions: Dismissals Without Prejudice Generally Cause Minimal Harm — Absent a Statute of Limitations Impediment to Refiling, Court of Appeals Therefore Applies a Less Stringent Standard of Review

Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. Txu Energy Retail Co. LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14377 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023) (unpublished) (applying 5th Circuit law) Per Curiam. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, sued TXU Energy Retail Co. LLC in the Northern District of …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Fifth Circuit Factors for Case-Ending Sanctions and for 37(b)(2) Sanctions Generally — Preclusion, Including Exclusion of Experts, Is Not as Drastic as Dismissal or Default — The Fact that Exclusion May Have the Legal Consequence of Dismissal (Or Any Other Consequence) Does Not Affect the Appropriateness of the Sanction

Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5. *1 Following a car accident,…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Requires Exclusion of Undisclosed, Or Untimely Disclosed, Evidence — Here, Expert Report — Unless The Target of Sanctions Moves The Court to Consider Lesser Sanctions

Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023): Opinion *1 Coloplast Corporation and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC (collectively, Coloplast) manufacture and market Restorelle L, a surgical mesh device. Angela Cantrell sued Coloplast for injuries…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Conditional Payment of Monetary Award Prevents Mootness — Contempt Sanction — Payment into Court Escrow Account — Court Can Declare Effective Relief By Ordering That The Sum Paid Be Returned

In re Sealed Case, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20733 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023): Pan, Circuit Judge:* The district court issued a search warrant in a criminal case, directing appellant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to produce information to the government …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions – Extrajudicial Misconduct: 1. Unilaterally obtaining $300 million arbitration award, absent an arbitration agreement or notice to adversary, is sanctionable even though it precedes commencement of bad faith attempt to confirm award in federal court. 2. District Court retained jurisdiction to rule on sanctions motion filed prior to notice of appeal of decision vacating arbitration award. 3. FRAP 38 appellate sanctions denied for failure to make separate motion.

Matios v. City of Loveland, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15749 (10th Cir. June 23, 2023) (unpublished) Eyoel-Dawit Matios, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions under its inherent powers. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions for (1) Filing Brief Generated by AI (ChatGPT) Filled with Fake and Nonsensical Cases, (2) Failing to Confirm the Authenticity of the Cases, (3) Failing to Make Any Inquiry to Determine If the Assertions of Law Were Correct, (4) Advocating for The Fake Cases After Being Informed by Adversary That the Cases Could Not Be Found, (5) Lying to the Court About Why Continuance Needed and Role of AI in Research — Conscious Avoidance Sufficient to Prove Knowledge —$5,000 Non-Compensatory Penalty Assessed — Offenders Must Notify Client and Judges Wrongly Named in the Fake Cases—“Nothing Inherently Improper About Using a Reliable Artificial Intelligence Tool for Assistance”

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108263 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions for (1) Filing Brief Generated by AI (ChatGPT) Filled with Fake and Nonsensical Cases, (2) Failing to Confirm the Authenticity of …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Clear-and-Convincing-Evidence Required (10th Circuit) — Evidence Rules Do Not Govern Sanctions Proceedings — Civil Rules Do Not Recognize a “Motion to Reconsider” As Opposed to Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, Which Requires “Manifest Error” or New Evidence — Abuse of Discretion Review (But Invocation of Inherent Power Is Reviewed De Novo (See Dissent)) — For Reversal, Appellate Court Must Be “Firmly Convinced … the District Court Erred in Finding … It Was Highly Probable That the [Offender] Acted in Bad Faith“ — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Witness Intimidation by Commencing Multimillion Dollar Arbitration Against Witness — Inherent Power Sanction Within District Court’s Jurisdiction When Acting Pursuant to a Strictly Limited Remand (Dissent Disagrees) — Sanctions for Arbitration Conduct Permissible Where Arbitration Threatened Court’s Proceedings — Permissible for Court to Evaluate Frivolousness of Claims in the Arbitration — Frivolousness, Alone, May Not Be Enough — Due Process Satisfied by Show-Cause Order — Monetary Award Was Civil Because It Was Limited to Fees Incurred in Federal Court Seeking Sanctions, Not Conduct in Arbitration— Fact Witness Intimidation Fails Does Not Negate Causation of Costs Incurred in Pursuing Sanctions — Failure to Reduce Requested Fees Does Not Mean Court Failed to Exercise Discretion

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20430 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* *1 Lynn Becker and the Ute Indian Tribe have been mired in litigation for nearly two decades. Mr. Becker’s relationship with…
Continue Reading
Previous14151617181920Next

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