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

Rule 11 Sanctions — Fees Incurred Because of the Violation, Including Fees Incurred in Bringing the Sanctions Motion, Are Recoverable Even If They Are Covered by Insurance — Res Judicata vs Claim-Splitting (The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation): Unlike Res Judicata, Which Requires A Final Judgment, The Rule Against Duplicative Litigation Permits Dismissal of a Duplicative Action While the First Case Remains Pending — A Judicial Determination That A Proposed Amendment to A Complaint Would Be Futile Operates As A Ruling on The Merits

Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22431 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023) * ...
Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22431 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023) *1 Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appeals an order of the district court* sanctioning him and his co-counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11…
Continue Reading

12(b)(6): To What Extent May A Court Consider An Expert Report Or Affidavit Annexed To A Complaint In Deciding A Dismissal Motion?

Alix v. McKinsey & Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145872, at *82-83, 2023 WL 5344892, at *27 (SDNY Aug. 18, 2023): *** Finally, [Defendant] McKinsey contends that a joint declaration from three bankruptcy professionals that Alix appended to ...
Alix v. McKinsey & Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145872, at *82-83, 2023 WL 5344892, at *27 (SDNY Aug. 18, 2023): *** Finally, [Defendant] McKinsey contends that a joint declaration from three bankruptcy professionals that Alix appended to the…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Mistake — A Colorable But Erroneous Argument — Is Not Properly Sanctioned under FRAP 38 — (2) FRAP 38 Particularly Apt When Losing Party in Arbitration Is Using Frivolous Arguments to Delay Collection of Award

Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4th 1099 (7th Cir. 2023) Opinion [*1101] An arbitrator rejected Donald Kinsella's claim that his employer, Baker Hughes, violated the Americans with Di ...
Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, 66 F.4th 1099 (7th Cir. 2023) Opinion [*1101] An arbitrator rejected Donald Kinsella’s claim that his employer, Baker Hughes, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate him after he suffered…
Continue Reading

Sanctions in the Form of Penalty Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy — Award of Sanctions Not Subject to Statute of Limitations Defense

O'Dwyer v. Carter, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10840 (5th Cir. May 3, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *1 Former attorney Ashton O’Dwyer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of a suit that he filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He has been disbarred f ...
O’Dwyer v. Carter, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10840 (5th Cir. May 3, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *1 Former attorney Ashton O’Dwyer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of a suit that he filed in the United States District…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions for failure to disclose pursuant to Rule 26(a) — (1) Party facing Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Bears Burden of Proving Her Violations Were Substantially Justified or Harmless — (2) Ninth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test for Determining Whether Violation Is Harmless — (3) Parties Not Excused from Making Rule 26(a) Disclosures Simply Because They Don’t Have All Evidence — Must Disclose and Later Supplement — (4) When Rule 37(c)(1) Sanction Will Be Dispositive, Court Must Consider (a) Willfulness, Fault, Bad Faith and (b) Availability of Lesser Sanctions (9th Cir. Requirements) — (5) Court Is Required to Consider Lesser Sanctions Under Rule 37(c)(1) Only If Asked to Do So

Gryglak v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. May 4, 2023) (unpublished) < ...
Gryglak v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. May 4, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 Edyta Gryglak (“Gryglak”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as trustee for Wells…
Continue Reading

Trial: Unanticipated/Undisclosed Evidence — An Objection Need Not Be Perfectly Contemporaneous with the Challenged Evidence to Be Timely

Johnson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20963 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023)  
Johnson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20963 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023)  We appreciate the challenges that parties face when attempting to respond to unanticipated issues arising in the heat of trial. For this reason, we have …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Finding of Willfulness ≠ Finding of Subjective Bad Faith — Due Process Requires Notice of Precise Rule, Standard or Law The Lawyer Allegedly Violated And How The Lawyer Allegedly Violated It

Baker v. 3M Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13339 (11th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) *1< ...
Baker v. 3M Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13339 (11th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) *1 This is an appeal from the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions against attorneys Kimberly O. Branscome and Jay L. Bhimani. At the conclusion…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Sanctions: Dismissals Without Prejudice Generally Cause Minimal Harm — Absent a Statute of Limitations Impediment to Refiling, Court of Appeals Therefore Applies a Less Stringent Standard of Review

Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. Txu Energy Retail Co. LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14377 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023) (unpublished) (applying 5th Circuit law) Per Curiam. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, sued TXU Energy Retail Co. LLC in the Nor ...
Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. Txu Energy Retail Co. LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14377 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023) (unpublished) (applying 5th Circuit law) Per Curiam. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, sued TXU Energy Retail Co. LLC in the Northern District of …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Fifth Circuit Factors for Case-Ending Sanctions and for 37(b)(2) Sanctions Generally — Preclusion, Including Exclusion of Experts, Is Not as Drastic as Dismissal or Default — The Fact that Exclusion May Have the Legal Consequence of Dismissal (Or Any Other Consequence) Does Not Affect the Appropriateness of the Sanction

Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designat ...
Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5. *1 Following a car accident,…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Requires Exclusion of Undisclosed, Or Untimely Disclosed, Evidence — Here, Expert Report — Unless The Target of Sanctions Moves The Court to Consider Lesser Sanctions

Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023): Opinion *1 Coloplast Corporation and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC (collectively, Coloplast) manufacture and market Restorelle L, a
Cantrell v. Coloplast Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2023): Opinion *1 Coloplast Corporation and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC (collectively, Coloplast) manufacture and market Restorelle L, a surgical mesh device. Angela Cantrell sued Coloplast for injuries…
Continue Reading
Previous14151617181920Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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