Joseph Hage Aaronson

§1927 Sanctions: Clear & Convincing Evid. Only If Cost of Whole Case Shifted — Persistent Prosecution of Baseless Claim Enough — Can’t Rely on Client If “Glaring Red Flags” (Many Good Quotes)

Joseph Hage Aaronson
November 4, 2019
Complex Lit Blog

Morrison v. Walker, 2019 WL 4782749 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2019): *1 Litigation abuse is nothing new. Since 1813, when James Madison was president, a one-sentence federal statute has authorized monetary sanctions against attorneys who misuse the litigation process.1…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Is Claim-Specific — First-to-File Rule (Factors) and Anticipatory Declaratory Judgment Exception — DJ Actions (Factors As to Appropriateness)

R. 11 Sanctions for Disqualification Motion—DQ Apt Only If Lesser Remedies Unavailable — Factors for Advocate Witness DQ — Type, # of Violations Guide Sanction — Papers “More About Vitriol … Than Fact Or Legal Principle” (Good Quotes)

Removal: Is Denial of Request for Admission That Claim Doesn’t Exceed $75,000 Sufficient to Establish Amount in Controversy? — Case Law Split — Settlement Offer Over $75K Can Be “Other Paper” Supporting Removal

Appeals: Party with Prejudgment Certification to Appeal Must File Petition in 10 Days — District Court Can’t Reenter or Recertify to Restart Clock — 10-Day Period Is Set in Statute, Is Jurisdictional, Not Claims-Processing

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Not Substantively Addressing District Court’s Reasoning — Vexatious Litigant Injunction on Appeal Per Inherent Power & All Writs Act — Good Quote on Pro Se Status Not Insulating Party from Clogging Courts with Meritless Case

Disqualification of Experts (2-Part Test) vs. Lawyers (2 Scenarios) — Courts Presume That Lawyers, But Not Experts, Received Confidential Information — Judicial Docs Presumptively Public Even If Not Relied on

Bankruptcy Courts Have Power to Issue at Least Relatively Minor, Non-Compensatory Inherent Power Sanctions — Power Derived Not from Art. III But from Nature of Federal Judicial Institutions — Appeals Court Must Assess Jurisdiction of Lower Courts

Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Lawyer for Violation of Court Order (Failure to Appear, Prosecute) Or Other Misconduct Not Undertaken for the Client’s Benefit without a Showing of Bad Faith (2d Cir.)

§1927 Sanctions: Clear & Convincing Evid. Only If Cost of Whole Case Shifted — Persistent Prosecution of Baseless Claim Enough — Can’t Rely on Client If “Glaring Red Flags” (Many Good Quotes)

Advocate-Witness Rule (3.7) — Lawyer in Bad Faith Insurance Action Who Represented Plaintiff in Underlying Suit = Necessary Witness & Disqualified — Not All Participation in Bad Faith Suit Barred

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Archives

New York Office