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

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

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
Previous21222324252627Next

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