Complex Lit Blog

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 LEXIS 12973 (11th Cir. May 28, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Bradley James Albert, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint alleging ...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Hernandez v. CareerSource Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 2025 WL 1541367 (11th Cir. May 30, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Yolanda Hernandez appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint alleging gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act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 ...

RICO Pattern: No Closed-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Lasted Less Than One Year (11th Circuit) — Conspiracy Allegations Governed by Rule 8(a), Not 9(b) — Two Paths to Establishing A RICO Conspiracy: Agreement to Objective Or to Commit 2 Predicate Acts — Plaintiff Need Not Show Reliance When The Predicate Acts Are Wire Fraud — In Dicta, 11th Circuit Intimates That Even If The Primary RICO Violation Allegations Fail, The RICO Conspiracy Allegations Might Survive, But Is Probably Talking About A Conspiracy to Commit The Predicate Acts

Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11156 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025): For the second time, we consider this long-running dispute alleging a transnational fraudulent scheme resulting in over $1 billion of losses to thirty plaintif ...

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…

§ 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…

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 ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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)

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

Recent Posts

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)

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)

Archives

New York Office