Joseph Hage Aaronson

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Rivas v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2019 WL 2419484 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Armando Rivas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint alleging that the defendants—entities in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

Patent-Agent (PA)-Client Privilege Is Narrower Than Attorney-Client, Coextensive with Rights of PAs to Practice before USPTO, Defined by USPTO Regs: Services Nec’y to Prep /Prosecution of Patent Applications

Luv N' Care v. Williams Intellectual Prop., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98960 (D. Colo. June 12, 2019): This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Williams Intellectual Property's Compliance with Subpoena and for Expedited Briefing [#1]…

Rule 11 Sanctions: No Failure to Mitigate Fees Shown Where Warning Letters Ignored — Time Spent Reviewing Social Media Posts OK — Inability to Pay May Be Offset by Deterrence — No R. 11 Fees for Time Spent on Appeal

Horen v. Board of Educ. of City of Toledo Public Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 11599934 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016): *1 Glenn Horen, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s imposition of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against…

RICO Extraterritoriality: Focus of Mail or Wire (MoW) Fraud Stat. Is Use of MoW in Aid of Scheme, Is Domestic If Use Is Domestic & Core Component of Scheme — Bank Fraud Domestic If Core Component Is Use of Domestic MoW to Steal Property in US

Bascuñán v. Elsaca, 2019 WL 2455168 (2d Cir. June 13, 2019) (Bascuñán II) (the Second Circuit’s opinion in Bascuñán I is contained in our November 20, 2018 blog post): *1 This is the second time we have been asked to …

RICO Enterprise: Only Some Defendants with Forum Selection Clause (FSC) or Arbitration Clause — All Defs “in Cahoots” with Signatory Stuck with FSC, All Plaintiffs with Arb. Clauses May Ask FSC Court Not to Enforce Them—FSC = Fed Law Iss.

Wilson v. 5 Choices, LLC, 2019 WL 2451068 (6th Cir. June 12, 2019): *1 Rebecca K. Wilson and twenty other Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against 5 Choices, LLC and twenty-five other Defendants. Plaintiffs argue on…

Pro Se Not Entitled to Rule 37 Attorney’s Fees — Pro Se Lawyer May Receive Attorney’s Fees per Inherent Power — Destruction of Records Per Business Policy before Notice of Claim Unsanctionable

Lucas v. Telemarketer Calling From (407) 476-5680 & Other Tel. Nos., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16106 (6th Cir. May 29, 2019) (unpublished): Vincent Lucas, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his complaint based upon…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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”

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))

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

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

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

Patent-Agent (PA)-Client Privilege Is Narrower Than Attorney-Client, Coextensive with Rights of PAs to Practice before USPTO, Defined by USPTO Regs: Services Nec’y to Prep /Prosecution of Patent Applications

Rule 11 Sanctions: No Failure to Mitigate Fees Shown Where Warning Letters Ignored — Time Spent Reviewing Social Media Posts OK — Inability to Pay May Be Offset by Deterrence — No R. 11 Fees for Time Spent on Appeal

RICO Extraterritoriality: Focus of Mail or Wire (MoW) Fraud Stat. Is Use of MoW in Aid of Scheme, Is Domestic If Use Is Domestic & Core Component of Scheme — Bank Fraud Domestic If Core Component Is Use of Domestic MoW to Steal Property in US

RICO Enterprise: Only Some Defendants with Forum Selection Clause (FSC) or Arbitration Clause — All Defs “in Cahoots” with Signatory Stuck with FSC, All Plaintiffs with Arb. Clauses May Ask FSC Court Not to Enforce Them—FSC = Fed Law Iss.

Pro Se Not Entitled to Rule 37 Attorney’s Fees — Pro Se Lawyer May Receive Attorney’s Fees per Inherent Power — Destruction of Records Per Business Policy before Notice of Claim Unsanctionable

Recent Articles

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)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

Archives

New York Office