Joseph Hage Aaronson

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Appealability—Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction: Unquantified Exceptional Case Attorneys’ Fees Award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Like Unquantified Rule 11 Sanctions Award — Is Not Reviewable

Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18852 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019): Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. and Elbit Systems of America, LLC (collectively, Elbit) brought this action against Hughes…

Diversity Jurisdiction: Forum Selection Clause and Waiver of Forum Non Conveniens Together Waive Forum Defendant Rule, Which Is Waivable

Uboh v. United States Equestrian Found., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70840 (E.D. Ky. April 26, 2019): MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cornelius Uboh, through counsel, has moved the Court to reconsider the decision outlined in the Court's previous memorandum opinion…

Sanctions: Bankruptcy Courts Empowered to Impose Civil Contempt — Circuit Split As to Whether They Have the Power to Issue Criminal Contempt Sanctions — Civil Contempt Standards Elucidated

Winnecour v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Ransom), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 953 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2019): MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER This matter concerns an Order to Show Cause ("OTSC") that was issued in both of the above…

A Supplemental Complaint Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), Which Adds Facts Not in Existence at the Time of Original Filing, May Be Used to Correct Substantive Defects in Original, Including Lack of Standing

St. Bernard Parish Gov't v. United States, 2019 U.S. Claims LEXIS 686 (Court of Federal Claims June 20, 2019): BACKGROUND On April 4, 2019, the court issued an Opinion in the above-captioned case denying defendant's motion to dismiss. See St. …

Daubert — Expert Testimony That Location of Warning Labels on Jet Ski Were Not Sufficiently Visible Properly Excluded Absent Any Methodology — Opinion Was “At Best, An Educated Guess” (Good Quote)

Ruggiero v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18143 (3d Cir. June 17, 2019) (unpublished): After suffering a severe injury while riding a personal watercraft (PWC), Plaintiff Angela Ruggierio sued the PWC's wholesaler, Defendant Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., alleging…

Erie Doctrine: State Trial Court Rulings Provide Guidance But Are Not Controlling Unless They Are Treated As Precedents within the State — [Generally] They Are “At Most Persuasive, But … Not Binding on a Federal Court”

Amaral Enters. Llc v. Gian, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101269 (D. Mass. June 18, 2019): Footnote 6. When a federal trial court sits in diversity, "[s]tate trial court rulings provide guidance but are not controlling unless they are treated as …

Tangible Spoliation: Negligence Enough for Adverse Inference in 2d Cir. — RR Not Sanctioned for Altering Scene 3 Years Post-Accident (Passage of Time, Conflicting Safety Duty)—Expert Testimony Out Where Counsel Misled Adversary as to Gist (37(c)(1))

Colon v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (2d Cir. June 19, 2019): Plaintiffs-Appellants Milton Omar Colon and Arlene Davis (collectively, "Plaintiffs") appeal from the judgment entered on October 19, 2017 by the United States District…

Res Judicata: Prior Judgment Barring Later RICO Claim against Client Also Bars It against Client’s Counsel (Privity) — While Pro Se Pleadings Liberally Construed, Failure to Make Any Argument Waives Claimed Error

Rivas v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2019 WL 2419484 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Armando Rivas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint alleging that the defendants—entities in the banking…

R. 37/16(f) Sanctions for Violating Protective Order by Reading Confidential Info Aloud in Court: Can’t Seek Fees for Sxs Issue from Later Fee App, Defense Fees Deducted from Any Award; Contingent Bar of Counsel from Arguing Again

In re Apple Device Performance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100322 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2019): ORDER RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 313 The Court expressed its disappointment with the parties, and with Mr. Cotchett and Mr.…

Inherent Power to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution Animates Rule 41 — Factors (4th Cir.) ≠ “Rigid Test” — Clients Participated in Violations of Rules & Orders — Need to Alert District Court of Justifications, Else No Abuse of Discretion

Attkisson v. Holder, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17882 (4th Cir. May 17, 2019, Amended June 10, 2019): Plaintiffs Sharyl Thompson Attkisson, James Howard Attkisson, [*2] and Sarah Judith Starr Attkisson appeal from the dismissal with prejudice of their claims …

Previous 52 53 545556 57 58 Next

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

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration