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

R. 37 & Inherent Power (IHP) Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference OK Not Disclosing Witness After Reliance on Wit. Required (26(a)(1), (e)) —Plain Error Rare in Civil Case — IHP: Narrow Exception to Bad Faith Requirement

Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25793 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020): On Christmas Eve, 2014, Joyce Higgs tripped over a bucket in a dining area of the cruise ship Costa Luminosa and sustained serious injuries …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Until Amount of Attorney’s Fees Is Set, No Final Order Or Appellate Jurisdiction Exists, Even If Fee Award Is Only One Part of Larger Award, Including Default Judgment and Dismissal of Counterclaims

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Dade City's Wild Things, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26042 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2020): BY THE COURT: The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.'s ("PETA") motion to dismiss…
Continue Reading

Common Core Doctrine: Fees Awardable for Claims Involving Common Facts Or Related Legal Theories, Even If Only One Triggers Fee-Shifting — Noncompliance with Bankruptcy Court Order Sanctionable via Striking Pleading on Analogy to Rule 37(b)

Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp. (Matter of Ridgeway), 2020 WL 5226553 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020): *1 For the last seven years, Christopher Martin Ridgeway and his former employer have waged scorched-earth lawfare against one another. Ridgeway has lost every battle…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions: Due Process—Flexible Notice, Substantial Compliance — OK to Issue OSC in 1 of 15 Cases & Dismiss All — Prisoner’s Knowledge of Own Conduct = Notice — Order Must State Specific Basis of Sxs — Types of Vexatious Lit Injn

Cobble v. U.S. Government, 816 Fed.Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Petitioner/Appellant Daniel Cobble1 (“Cobble”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice, as a sanction, his pro se actions, filed pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation: Inherent Power—Fraud on Court Requires Clear & Convincing Evidence — Factors — Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Consideration of Less Drastic Sanctions — [No Reference to 37(e), Which Governs]

ComLab Corp. v. Tire, 815 Fed.Appx. 597 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant ComLab, Corp. (“ComLab”) brings this consolidated appeal challenging two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first appeal…
Continue Reading

Good Faith Reliance on Information Received from In-House Counsel, Verified After Challenge Raised, Defeats Rule 11 Sanction Sought for Misrepresenting Corporate Status

Huang v. Mediatek USA, Inc.815 Fed.Appx. 521 (Fed. Cir. 2020): This appeal arises from an action for patent infringement. Xiaohua Huang accused MediaTek USA Inc., formerly known as Nephos Inc., of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,744,653 and…
Continue Reading

Appeals: FRAP 38 Sanctions Apt If Appeal Is Wholly without Merit, There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success — § 1927 Sanctions If Lawyer Reasonably Should Have Known Claim Is Frivolous

T.V.S. v. Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25457 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020): ¶¶ ORDER Akron City School District Board of Education, Akron City School District, and its employees David W. James, Philomena Vincente,…
Continue Reading
Previous23242526272829Next

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