Complex Lit Blog

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 LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court's dismissal of her homeowner's insurance claims agai ...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 LEXIS 13836 (5th Cir. June 5, 2025) (unpublished): Per Curiam:* Elizabeth Wright appeals the district court’s dismissal of her homeowner’s insurance claims against ASI Lloyds (“ASI”), its denial of her motion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 LEXIS 12892 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED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 LEXIS 12892 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court, entered on September 30,…

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)

Blom Bank SAL v. Honickman, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2197, 2025 WL 1583305 (U.S. June 5, 2025):

Blom Bank SAL v. Honickman, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2197, 2025 WL 1583305 (U.S. June 5, 2025): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court to grant relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances. The Rule includes…

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

Albert v. Discover Bank, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12973 (11th Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Bradley James Albert, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint alleging ...

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

Hernandez v. CareerSource Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 2025 WL 1541367 (11th Cir. May 30, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Yolanda Hernandez appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint alleging gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) (“Title VII”), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Kousisis v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1982 (U.S. May 22, 2025): Stamatios Kousisis and the industrial-painting company he helped manage, Alpha Painting and Construction Co., secured two government contracts for painting projects in Phi ...

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

United States v. Esteras, 102 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2024) (see penultimate paragraph of decision): [*102] Carlos Esteras and Raphael Frias appeal their sentences after entering pleas of guilty to fentanyl trafficking charges. Each ...

United States v. Esteras, 102 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2024) (see penultimate paragraph of decision): [*102] Carlos Esteras and Raphael Frias appeal their sentences after entering pleas of guilty to fentanyl trafficking charges. Each argues that the district court…

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

Twice in the past two months the Supreme Court has construed activity, or inactivity, in the district court as tantamount to issuing, or refusing to issue, a preliminary injunction and thus appealable. In Dep't of Educ. v. California, 2025 U.S. LEX ...

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

InfoDeli, LLC v. W. Robidoux, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10756 (8th Cir. May 5, 2025): *1 This consolidated appeal stems from a conflict involving a family and its businesses that has now been litigated in both sta ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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”

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

Recent Posts

nherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 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

Archives

New York Office