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

Disqualification: Lawyers Who Initially Represented A Group of Plaintiffs But Ended Up Representing Only 2 Of Them Because the Group Couldn’t Agree on a Remedy Were Not Subject to Disqualification by Former Clients Because \ Disagreement as to Remedy Was Not Materially Adverse to the Former Clients

Whitest v. Crisp Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32934 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: [*2]  On June 14, 2017, Crandall Postell and numerous co-plaintiffs, represented by Bryan L. Sells and ACLU-affiliated attorneys, filed a lawsuit…
Continue Reading

(1) Rule 37 Sanctions: Court’s Discretion Narrows As the Severity of the Sanction Increases; (2) Party Does Not Waive Personal Jurisdiction Defense by Moving to Set Aside Default

Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China Nat’l Materials Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33531 (8th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023) Appellant Hawkeye Gold, LLC, an Iowa-based seller of livestock feed, brought this action against China National Materials Industry…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions/Due Process/Vexatious Litigant Injunction: (1) Pro Se Status Relevant to Considering Whether Due Process Issue Waived Due to Failure to Assert; (2) Party Has a Right to Notice That a Vexatious Litigant Injunction Is Under Consideration and an Opportunity to Be Heard; (3) Prior Warnings of Frivolousness from Other Courts Does Not Afford Notice That Party Is at Risk of Sanction in Present Court (i.e., Distinguishing Notice of Frivolousness from Due Process Notice of Risk of Sanction)

Allen v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33380 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2023)   Per Curiam. *1 Derrick Allen filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Clerk’s Office in the United States District…
Continue Reading

(1) Party May Simultaneously Claim Privilege And Dispute Document’s Authenticity; (2) No Per Se Waiver Rule When Privilege Log Is Not Produced; (3) Fact Opponent Actually Possesses Challenged Documents Significantly Affects Log Analysis; (4) Inherent Power Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Factors

Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30921 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (unpublished):  MEMORANDUM* In 2010, Defendant-Appellee Cristiano Ronaldo (“Ronaldo”) settled a sexual assault claim made against him by Plaintiff-Appellant Kathryn Mayorga (“Mayorga”). The matter lay dormant until…
Continue Reading

Appeals: “When A District Court Lists Several Reasons For Taking A Certain Action, And One Of The Reasons Is Flawed, The District Court’s Decision Should Still Be Upheld If Other Reasons Support The Ruling” (Good Quote)

Baker v. Meiling, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):   MEMORANDUM* Appellants—a [*3]  proposed class of elderly investors in a metal-coatings company—appeal from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to Appellees and sanctioning…
Continue Reading

(1) Diversity Jurisdiction: Allegations of Residency May Be Corrected by Letter to Establish Citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1653; (2) Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Excluding Expert Report — Fifth Circuit Factors; (3) Rule of Orderliness: One Panel May Not Overturn Another’s Decision Absent Intervening Change in Law; (4) Modest Prejudice from Late Expert Disclosure Sufficient to Sustain Exclusion; (5) Defaulting Party’s Refusal to Consent to Adjournment of Expert Deadlines Properly Considered in Exclusion Analysis; (6) Good Quote: “Because Of A Trial Court’s Need To Control Its Docket, A Party’s Violation Of The Court’s Scheduling Order Should Not Routinely Justify A Continuance”

Stewart v. Gruber, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33127 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Plaintiffs1 appeal from two interrelated district court orders: (1) the exclusion of their expert’s reports and testimony, [*2]  and (2) the grant…
Continue Reading

Rule 37/Contempt/Dismissal Discovery Sanctions: (1) Magistrate Judge Must Refer Contempt Charges to District Court Except When Exercising Consent Jurisdiction; (2) Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault; (3) Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit); (4) Fees And Expenses For Entire Deposition OK Where Party So Obstructed Deposition As To Render It Entirely Useless Because Case Dismissed — District Judge Not Required to Further Apportion Fees and Expenses for Obstructed Part

Xingfei Luo v. Paul Wang, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32882 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge *1 Xingfei Luo brought this action against Paul Wang asserting various defamation-related claims. After a magistrate …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 & The PSLRA: (1) Sanctions Order Is Not Appealable Until The Award Amount of the Award (The Relief) Is Finalized; (2) Issue Abandoned on Appeal by Failing to Provide Supporting Arguments Explaining Error; (3) Rule 11 Sanctions Under PSLRA Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion; (4) PSLRA Requires District Court to Make Findings As to Each Party’s and Each Attorney’s Compliance with Rule 11(b); (5) PSLRA Mandates Presumptive Award of Attorney’s Fees If Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 11(b); (6) Presumption Rebutted by Proof the Award (a) Would Impose Unreasonable Burden on Plaintiff, (b) Would Be Unjust; (c) If Not Entered, Would Not Impose A Greater Burden on the Aggrieved Party; or (d) The Violation of Rule 11(b) Was De Minimis; (7) Even If Presumption Rebutted, Court Must Award Other Appropriate Sanctions

Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32938 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Scott Meide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders imposing sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading
Previous45678910Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

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