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

Complex Lit Blog

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): United States Trinity Energy Services, L.L.C. ("Trinity Energy") and Southeast Directional Drilling, L.L.C. ("Sout ...
United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): United States Trinity Energy Services, L.L.C. (“Trinity Energy”) and Southeast Directional Drilling, L.L.C. (“Southeast Drilling”) were parties to a…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

Lall v. Corner Inv. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10093 (9th Cir. April 28, 2025) (unpublished): MEMO ...
Lall v. Corner Inv. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10093 (9th Cir. April 28, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. *1…
Continue Reading

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Thomas v. Bartholomew, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9696, 2025 WL 1179583 (11th Cir. April 23, 2025):  PER CURIAM: Appellant Derek Thomas was living in a house that his deceased mother had rented. When he missed a rent payment, the landlor ...
Thomas v. Bartholomew, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9696, 2025 WL 1179583 (11th Cir. April 23, 2025):  PER CURIAM: Appellant Derek Thomas was living in a house that his deceased mother had rented. When he missed a rent payment, the landlord,…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1458 (U.S. April 17, 2025): The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended,
Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1458 (U.S. April 17, 2025): The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq., prohibits ERISA plan fiduciaries …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

Gilmore-Bey v. Meltser, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER ...
Gilmore-Bey v. Meltser, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7319 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished): ORDER Pro se Michigan plaintiff Nintu Xi Gilmore-Bey appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment-discrimination and defamation complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Aim Immunotech, Inc. v. Tudor, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7566 (11th Cir. April 1, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant AIM Immunotech, Inc. (AIM) appeals the dismissal of its Amended Complaint against Defendants-Appellees Franz
Aim Immunotech, Inc. v. Tudor, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7566 (11th Cir. April 1, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant AIM Immunotech, Inc. (AIM) appeals the dismissal of its Amended Complaint against Defendants-Appellees Franz [*2]  Tudor, Todd Deutsch, Ted Kellner, Jonathan…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Saninocencio v. Pierce & Mandell, P.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8100 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (unpublished): JUDGMENT Gary Dolan ("Dolan"), an attorney, appeals from the district court's entry of a January 14, 2022 ...
Saninocencio v. Pierce & Mandell, P.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8100 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (unpublished): JUDGMENT Gary Dolan (“Dolan”), an attorney, appeals from the district court’s entry of a January 14, 2022 order on sanctions that, inter alia…
Continue Reading

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

(1) Dep't of Educ. v. California, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1370, at *1-2 (April 4, 2025): Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court ...
(1) Dep’t of Educ. v. California, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1370, at *1-2 (April 4, 2025): Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court’s order …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7976, 2025 WL 1007290 (8th Cir. April 4, 2025): *1 E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LCC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), alleging several breach-of-contract and tort claims arising from Liberty’s promise to ...
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7976, 2025 WL 1007290 (8th Cir. April 4, 2025): *1 E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LCC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company…
Continue Reading

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Puckett v. Ain-Jeem, Inc., 2025 WL 948092 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025): ORDER *1 Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., and his wife, Marcella Puckett, both proceeding pro se, appeal a district court judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (No. 24-5282). Axencis, Inc. conditionally cross-appeals the same judgment. (No. ...
Puckett v. Ain-Jeem, Inc., 2025 WL 948092 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025): ORDER *1 Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., and his wife, Marcella Puckett, both proceeding pro se, appeal a district court judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint for lack of…
Continue Reading
1234Next

Recent Posts

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice