Complex Lit Blog

§ 1927 Sanctions — When Does Inactivity Multiply Litigation? — Lawyers Entitled to Time to Digest New, Adverse Information — “Losing Is Part of the Lawyer’s Lot” & Not, Alone, Sanctionable (Good Quote)

Baca v. Berry, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): This case arises out of an award of attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction on attorneys who brought a voting-rights lawsuit against the Mayor of Albuquerque. After dismissing the case, the district court found the attorneys unreasonably multiplied ...

Baca v. Berry, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): This case arises out of an award of attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction on attorneys who brought a voting-rights lawsuit against the Mayor of Albuquerque.…

FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Require (1) Prior Judicial Warning Claims Are Frivolous and (2) Awareness by Pro Se of Ample Authority Holding Squarely against Him or Her — § 1927 Available against Pro Se?

Simmons v. Methodist Hosp. of Dallas, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): After Methodist Hospital terminated him, Jason Simmons brought an employment discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment, and Simmons did not appeal. Two years later, Simmons brought a second lawsuit against Methodist ...

Does Rule 15(b)(2) (Which Provides That, If An Issue Not Raised by the Pleadings Is Tried by the Parties, It Is to Be Considered As If It Had Been Pled) Apply to Summary Judgment? Circuit Split

Posey v. NJR Clean Energy Ventures Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146688 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2015): 1 Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2), Defendant "effectively consented by its conduct" to resolve the new theories of liability raised in the proposed amended com ...

Dual Fact/Expert Witness — Appropriate Precautions to Avoid Several Risks Associated with Dual-Role Testimony at Trial

United States v. Moralez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21341 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): Moralez argues that Agent Taylor's dual roles as fact and expert witness prevented effective cross-examination because attempted impeachment of his expert credentials ran the risk of eliciting, and bolstering the credibility of, otherwise inadmi ...

United States v. Moralez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21341 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): Moralez argues that Agent Taylor's dual roles as fact and expert witness prevented effective cross-examination because attempted impeachment of his expert credentials ran the risk of …

Diversity — Are Attorney’s Fees That Are Anticipated But Not Yet Accrued at the Time of Removal Considered in Determining the Amount in Controversy? — Caselaw Split

Sevilla v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153459 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015): 1 Moreover, Courts in the Ninth Circuit are split as to whether attorneys' fees which are anticipated but have not yet accrued at the time of removal should be calculated in determining amount in controversy. S ...

Sevilla v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153459 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015): 1 Moreover, Courts in the Ninth Circuit are split as to whether attorneys' fees which are anticipated but have not yet accrued …

Attorney’s Violation of Ethical Rules in Disclosing Privileged Communications Is Irrelevant to the Communications’ Admissibility — Advice-of-Counsel Defense Waives Privilege Even If Defense Is Invalid

Am. Plastics Techs., Inc. v. Dymond Pharmcare Indus., Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162716 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2015): Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants American Plastics Technologies, Inc. and Rao Murukurthy ("Murukurthy") (collectively [*4] "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Dymond Pharmc ...

Am. Plastics Techs., Inc. v. Dymond Pharmcare Indus., Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162716 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2015): Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants American Plastics Technologies, Inc. and Rao Murukurthy ("Murukurthy") (collectively [*4] "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Dymond Pharmcare Industries, Ltd. ("Dymond") and Obong…

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Document Posted on a Foreign or Domestic Official Website Is Presumptively Authentic If Government Sponsorship Can Be Verified by Visiting Website — Voluminous Length May Require Additional Proffer

Berry Plastics Corp. v. Intertape Polymer Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162609 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2015): Plaintiff, Berry Plastics Corporation, requests that the court take judicial notice of the European Patent Office ("EPO") patent opposition prosecution history of European Patent No. 1,056,584 pursuant to Federal Rules of ...

Rule 11 Sanctions — Baseless Objection to Class Action Settlement — Good Quote: Burying One’s Head in the Sand, in the Hope That a Judge Will Disregard an Adverse Decision by the Supreme Court, Is a Paradigm of Frivolous Litigation

In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156546 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2015): The Direct Purchaser Class moves for Rule 11 sanctions against Objector Michael Narkin (Doc. 1743), and Narkin moves for sanctions against Class Counsel (Doc. 1800). Sanctions are appropriate because Narkin is not a class ...

Lay Opinion Testimony Based on Hearsay Statements Made by Unidentified Individuals, Well Beyond Witness’s Personal Experience, Violates Rule 701 — Email Containing Hearsay That Is Relevant to State of Mind Only If Hearsay Is True Is Inadmissible

United States v. Lloyd, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21056 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2015): Five defendants appeal their convictions or sentences for selling unregistered securities. The defendants worked for telemarketing "boiler rooms" in California and Florida, soliciting investments in partnerships to finance the production and distribu ...

Rule 11 — Failing, in Summary Judgment Opposition Brief, to Make Specific Arguments in Defense of Claims Subject to Rule 11 Motion Is Not Equivalent to Withdrawing Them Per Safe Harbor

Barrett-Bowie v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20706 (5th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015): [Plaintiff’s counsel] appeal the district court's Rule 11 sanction order reprimanding them for submitting pleadings that contained factual allegations that Appellants knew were false. Because the district court did not abuse i ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

§ 1927 Sanctions — When Does Inactivity Multiply Litigation? — Lawyers Entitled to Time to Digest New, Adverse Information — “Losing Is Part of the Lawyer’s Lot” & Not, Alone, Sanctionable (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Require (1) Prior Judicial Warning Claims Are Frivolous and (2) Awareness by Pro Se of Ample Authority Holding Squarely against Him or Her — § 1927 Available against Pro Se?

Does Rule 15(b)(2) (Which Provides That, If An Issue Not Raised by the Pleadings Is Tried by the Parties, It Is to Be Considered As If It Had Been Pled) Apply to Summary Judgment? Circuit Split

Dual Fact/Expert Witness — Appropriate Precautions to Avoid Several Risks Associated with Dual-Role Testimony at Trial

Diversity — Are Attorney’s Fees That Are Anticipated But Not Yet Accrued at the Time of Removal Considered in Determining the Amount in Controversy? — Caselaw Split

Attorney’s Violation of Ethical Rules in Disclosing Privileged Communications Is Irrelevant to the Communications’ Admissibility — Advice-of-Counsel Defense Waives Privilege Even If Defense Is Invalid

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Document Posted on a Foreign or Domestic Official Website Is Presumptively Authentic If Government Sponsorship Can Be Verified by Visiting Website — Voluminous Length May Require Additional Proffer

Rule 11 Sanctions — Baseless Objection to Class Action Settlement — Good Quote: Burying One’s Head in the Sand, in the Hope That a Judge Will Disregard an Adverse Decision by the Supreme Court, Is a Paradigm of Frivolous Litigation

Lay Opinion Testimony Based on Hearsay Statements Made by Unidentified Individuals, Well Beyond Witness’s Personal Experience, Violates Rule 701 — Email Containing Hearsay That Is Relevant to State of Mind Only If Hearsay Is True Is Inadmissible

Rule 11 — Failing, in Summary Judgment Opposition Brief, to Make Specific Arguments in Defense of Claims Subject to Rule 11 Motion Is Not Equivalent to Withdrawing Them Per Safe Harbor

Recent Posts

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)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Archives

New York Office