Joseph Hage Aaronson

RICO: Generalized Allegations of Conspiracy to Defraud Insufficient to State Claim under §1962(c), §1962(d), or Rule 9(b)

McZeal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 2425383 (9th Cir. May 30, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Al McZeal and other plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s dismissal of their action asserting claims based on alleged abuses in the…

Sanctions: Dismissal Rev’d Absent Findings of (1) Pattern of Delay & (2) Lesser Sanctions Insufficient — Settlement Agreement: Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce If It’s Reached before Dismissal by Court — Reassigning Judge = Severe Reprimand

Szanto v. Bistritz, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20782 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Peter Szanto, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Defendant Joseph Bistritz.…

Inherent Power Sanction Requires Explicit Finding of Conduct Tantamount to Bad Faith — Court Has Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction to Issue Post-Judgment Injunctive Relief When Facing Real Risk Judgment Debtor May Secrete or Dissipate Funds

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 2018 WL 3627646 (9th Cir July 31, 2018) (amended opinion; unpublished) (amending the opinion excepted in our post of June 11, 2018): AMENDED MEMORANDUM* In an arbitration between Vitaly Smagin and Ashot Yegiazaryan, the London Court of…

R. 11, §1927, Inherent Power Sanctions: Bad Faith = Knowingly or Recklessly Pursuing Frivolous Claim — Post-Sanctions Reversal of Case on Which Sanctions Based Shows Claim Wasn’t Frivolous, Even Though Precluded under Then-Existing Law

Silva v. Pro Transp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22258 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Juan Antonio Silva appeals a district court order assessing sanctions against him and his attorneys. Silva sued his employer, Pro Transport, Inc.,…

Rule 11(c)(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions — Prior Issuance of Order to Show Cause Is Mandatory — Sending Email Identifying Court’s Concerns Not Enough, Requires Vacatur

Przybysz v. City of Toledo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23103 (6th Ciur. Aug. 20, 2018): Marcia Przybysz appeals the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Sergeant Karrie Williams, the City of Toledo, and other officers named as defendants,…

Rule 11: 10th Cir.’s 5-Factor Dismissal Test Applies to All Sanctions — Doubling Down behind Manipulated Email When Shown Original in Safe Harbor Warning = Bad Faith (Good Quotes)—Post-Goodyear, Can Mkt Fees Be Awarded State Atty? [37(e)]

King v. Fleming, 2018 WL 3863326 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018): *1 Facing a motion to dismiss, the appellants attached a materially altered e-mail (described as an “unofficial version”) to an amended complaint. The appellees notified the appellants that the …

RICO: Probate Estate, Like Bankruptcy Estate, May Constitute Enterprise — Beneficiary Has Standing to Sue for Pillaging — Multiple Other Important Holdings Summarized Up Front

Summary of holdings: Standing/Ripeness: “[C]laims for "lost debt" injuries—that is, for damages in the form of an owed, but as-yet-uncollected, amount—are unripe when parallel proceedings to collect the amount owed are ongoing in another forum.” Standing/Ripeness; A RICO …

Text Authentication: Messages Received with Sender’s Name as Recorded on Recipient’s Phone, Contents Known Only to the Two of Them — Photos of Texts Properly Received in Evidence

Tran v. State, 2018 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 841, 2018 WL 3468554 (Ind. Ct. App. July 19, 2018): Statement of the Case P1 James Tran appeals his convictions of nine counts of child molesting, all as Class A felonies…

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — $950 Against Counsel for Being 18 Minutes Late to Settlement Conference, Late Filing Mediation Memo ( Lacking Some Info) — Sanction Against Client Reversed: No Evidence It “Was Responsible for Or Even Knew About” Issues

Apelian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3030692 (9th Cir. June 19, 2018): MEMORANDUM* *1 Appellants Allstate Insurance Company and its trial counsel appeal a magistrate judge’s sanctions award of attorney’s fees of $12,500 plus an additional $500 against Allstate, …

Although 12(f) Motion to Strike Is Disfavored As Drastic Remedy, It Is Appropriately Granted When Post-Appeal Pleading Re-Asserts Claims Or Defenses That Were Resolved on Appeal — Such Allegations Are Impertinent

United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 2018 WL 3734281 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018): *1 This appeal is pursued by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (the “Guild”) from the judgment in the District of Maryland ordering forfeiture to the …

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

RICO: Generalized Allegations of Conspiracy to Defraud Insufficient to State Claim under §1962(c), §1962(d), or Rule 9(b)

Sanctions: Dismissal Rev’d Absent Findings of (1) Pattern of Delay & (2) Lesser Sanctions Insufficient — Settlement Agreement: Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce If It’s Reached before Dismissal by Court — Reassigning Judge = Severe Reprimand

Inherent Power Sanction Requires Explicit Finding of Conduct Tantamount to Bad Faith — Court Has Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction to Issue Post-Judgment Injunctive Relief When Facing Real Risk Judgment Debtor May Secrete or Dissipate Funds

R. 11, §1927, Inherent Power Sanctions: Bad Faith = Knowingly or Recklessly Pursuing Frivolous Claim — Post-Sanctions Reversal of Case on Which Sanctions Based Shows Claim Wasn’t Frivolous, Even Though Precluded under Then-Existing Law

Rule 11(c)(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions — Prior Issuance of Order to Show Cause Is Mandatory — Sending Email Identifying Court’s Concerns Not Enough, Requires Vacatur

Rule 11: 10th Cir.’s 5-Factor Dismissal Test Applies to All Sanctions — Doubling Down behind Manipulated Email When Shown Original in Safe Harbor Warning = Bad Faith (Good Quotes)—Post-Goodyear, Can Mkt Fees Be Awarded State Atty? [37(e)]

RICO: Probate Estate, Like Bankruptcy Estate, May Constitute Enterprise — Beneficiary Has Standing to Sue for Pillaging — Multiple Other Important Holdings Summarized Up Front

Text Authentication: Messages Received with Sender’s Name as Recorded on Recipient’s Phone, Contents Known Only to the Two of Them — Photos of Texts Properly Received in Evidence

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — $950 Against Counsel for Being 18 Minutes Late to Settlement Conference, Late Filing Mediation Memo ( Lacking Some Info) — Sanction Against Client Reversed: No Evidence It “Was Responsible for Or Even Knew About” Issues

Although 12(f) Motion to Strike Is Disfavored As Drastic Remedy, It Is Appropriately Granted When Post-Appeal Pleading Re-Asserts Claims Or Defenses That Were Resolved on Appeal — Such Allegations Are Impertinent

Recent Articles

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

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

Archives

New York Office