Complex Lit Blog

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

Gardner-Alfred v. FRB of N.Y., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025): Defendant-appellee the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the "Federal Reserve") declined the requests of plaintiffs-appellants Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz f ...

Gardner-Alfred v. FRB of N.Y., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275 (2d Cir. July 2, 2025): Defendant-appellee the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the “Federal Reserve”) declined the requests of plaintiffs-appellants Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz for a religious exemption…

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

Parrish v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1664 (2025): In civil litigation, filing your notice of appeal too late deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal. Litigants who miss the appeal deadline because they do not timely rec ...

Parrish v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1664 (2025): In civil litigation, filing your notice of appeal too late deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal. Litigants who miss the appeal deadline because they do not timely …

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

Bilodeau v. Usinage Berthold, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893 (2d Cir. June 27, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the August 9, 2024, judgment of the District Court is

Bilodeau v. Usinage Berthold, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893 (2d Cir. June 27, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the August 9, 2024, judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellee Tricia Bilodeau brought this action,…

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

Chavez-Deremer v. Ascent Constr., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14196 (10th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT** In this civil action brought by the United Stat ...

Chavez-Deremer v. Ascent Constr., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14196 (10th Cir. June 10, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT** In this civil action brought by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) to enforce the Employee Retirement Income Security…

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

Rice v. Chief Exam'r of the Ala. Dep't of Exam'rs of Pub. Accounts, 2025 U.S. App. LE ...

Rice v. Chief Exam’r of the Ala. Dep’t of Exam’rs of Pub. Accounts, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15558, 2025 WL 1743708 (11th Cir. June 24, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 In September 2019, Plaintiff Brian Rice received an appraisal…

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

BPI Sports, LLC v. ThermoLife Int'l LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14743 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (unpublished): The parties cross-appeal a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of false advertising under the La ...

BPI Sports, LLC v. ThermoLife Int’l LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14743 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (unpublished): The parties cross-appeal a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of false advertising under…

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

Ratfield v. United States Drug Testing Labs., Inc., 2025 WL 1670353 (7th Cir. June 13, 2025):1 Plaintiffs, comprised of Andrea Ratfield, ten other pilots, a physician, a nurse, and an attorney, were all required to undergo alcohol testing to maintain their employment and professional licenses. Here, the testing came in the form of a dried blood spot test developed by U ...

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (U.S. June 20, 2025): Pursuant to the Cl ...

Diamond Alt. Energy, LLC v. EPA, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2383 (U.S. June 20, 2025): Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency approved California regulations requiring automakers to alter their fleets of new vehicles.…

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

Wright v. Lloyds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court's dismissal of her homeowner's insurance claims agai ...

Wright v. Lloyds, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court’s dismissal of her homeowner’s insurance claims against ASI Lloyds (“ASI”), its denial of her motion to compel…

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)

Jobar Holding Corp. v. Halio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12892 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

Jobar Holding Corp. v. Halio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12892 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court, entered on September 30,…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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)

Recent Posts

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