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

Federal Post-Judgment Interest Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c)(4), Applies to Adversary Proceedings in Bankruptcy, Unless a More Particular Provision of the Bankruptcy Code Dictates A Different Result (Issue of First Impression in Fifth Circuit)

Carmichael v. Balke (In re Imperial Petro. Recovery Corp.), 84 F.4th 264 (5th Cir. 2023): [*268]  Per Curiam: This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. I. This litigation stems…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal with Prejudice Appropriate for Threats of Violence Or Other Insubordination That Disables The Judiciary From Functioning

Freeman v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31213 (7th Cir. Nov.  22, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER Dismissal of a lawsuit, although a severe sanction, is sometimes warranted. The district court properly dismissed this suit filed by Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Require Willful Disobedience of Court Order Or Act Taken in Bad Faith, Vexatiously, Wantonly or For Oppressive Reasons — Finding of Bad Faith Warranted for Knowingly or Recklessly Raising Frivolous Argument Or Arguing Meritorious Claim for Purposes of Harassing Opponent

Rooter Hero Phx., Inc. v. Beebe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32661 (9th Cir Dec. 11, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs Rooter Hero Phoenix, Inc. and Call Pro’s, Inc. appeal the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions on their counsel under …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Complaint — Two-Pronged Inquiry: (a) Whether Complaint Is Objectively Frivolous and (b) Whether Attorney Conducted A Reasonable Inquiry; (2) Relevant Factors Include Access To Information, Experience Of Attorney Versus The Level Of Specialized Expertise Necessary, Whether The Allegations Are Related To Knowledge, Purpose, Or Intent, The Relation Of Allegedly Frivolous Claim To The Pleading As A Whole, Length Of Time The Attorney Had To Investigate, And The Complexity Of The Case

Persian Gulf, Inc. v. Alon United States Energy, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34169 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated cases, Defendant-Appellant Alon USA Energy, Inc. (Alon) appeals the district court’s denial of its…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions — Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) —Adverse Inference — Fifth Circuit Equates “Intent to Deprive Another Party of the Information’s Use in the Litigation” with Its Traditional Test of “‘Bad Faith’ or ‘Bad Conduct’”

Ford v. Anderson Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 506 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024) Per Curiam: On June 15, 2018, pretrial detainee Rhonda Newsome died in Anderson County Jail due to complications [*2]  from Addison’s disease. Newsome’s family members filed…
Continue Reading

Criminal Spoliation — Eleventh Circuit Has Never Ruled That A Spoliation Instruction Should Be Given in a Criminal Case, But Holds That Bad Faith Would Be Required Were It Ever To So Rule — Also Surveying Other Circuits’ Law on Criminal Spoliation

United States v. Fey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34456 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2023): Criminal Spoliation — Eleventh Circuit Has Never Ruled That A Spoliation Instruction Should Be Given in a Criminal Case, But Holds That Bad Faith Would Be …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(d) and 41(b) Dismissal Sanction: (1) Sixth Circuit Factors (Bad Faith/Fault, Prejudice, Warning, Lesser Sanctions Considered); (2) Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Excuses District Court’s Failure to Warn Litigant That Case Could Be Dismissed (Here, Opposing Counsel Had So Warned in Writing); (3) While Lesser Sanctions Should Be Considered, District Court May Dismiss As First And Only Sanction; (4) Type of Misconduct Justifying Dismissal with Prejudice

Moore v. Erickson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26639 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER *1 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Anthony Lamont Moore, a former Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment imposing costs…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions: Sixth Circuit Standards — Using Residential Funding Framework For Electronic Spoliation — Call to Ethics Hotline Absent Threat of Litigation or Preservation Demand Insufficient to Trigger Duty to Preserve

Goodale v. Elavon, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32861 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER Elizabeth Ann Goodale, proceeding through counsel, appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Elavon, Inc., on her employment-discrimination claims. The parties have waived…
Continue Reading
Previous17181920212223Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice