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 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Hills v. Roble, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6296 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished): AMENDED ORDER Pro se litigant Derrick Hills appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment in his civil suit again ...
Hills v. Roble, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6296 (6th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished): AMENDED ORDER Pro se litigant Derrick Hills appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment in his civil suit against federal officials involved in…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8983 (9th Cir. April 15, 2024): Whittaker Corporation ("Whittaker") and the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency ("SCVWA" or "Agency ...
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8983 (9th Cir. April 15, 2024): Whittaker Corporation (“Whittaker”) and the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (“SCVWA” or “Agency”) cross-appeal a $68 million judgment in favor of the …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Plaintiff-Appellee Transamerica Life Insurance Company ("Transamerica") sued Defendants-Appellants Akop Arutyunyan and his daughter Anahit Arutyunyan1 for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to defraud Transamerica into paying benefits under a long-term care insurance policy. Concluding that Defendants had ...
Plaintiff-Appellee Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“Transamerica”) sued Defendants-Appellants Akop Arutyunyan and his daughter Anahit Arutyunyan1 for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to defraud Transamerica into paying benefits under a long-term care insurance policy. Concluding that Defendants had repeatedly failed …
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Jones v. Riot Hosp. Grp. LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5251, 95 F.4th 730 (9th Cir. 2024): The dist ...
Jones v. Riot Hosp. Grp. LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5251, 95 F.4th 730 (9th Cir. 2024): The district court dismissed this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2) because of intentional spoliation of electronically stored information (“ESI”)…
Continue Reading

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Edge v. TLW Energy Servs., L.L.C., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11130 (5th Cir. May 5, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Primarily at issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by s ...
Edge v. TLW Energy Servs., L.L.C., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11130 (5th Cir. May 5, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Primarily at issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing this action with prejudice for…
Continue Reading

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Marquez v. Silver, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7206 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024): Plaintiff-Appellant Alexis Marquez, an attorney proceeding pro se, alleged that an Acting New York State Supreme Court Justice harassed her and subjected her to inappropriate b ...
Marquez v. Silver, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7206 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024): Plaintiff-Appellant Alexis Marquez, an attorney proceeding pro se, alleged that an Acting New York State Supreme Court Justice harassed her and subjected her to inappropriate behavior during…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7203 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECRE ...
Friedman v. Bloomberg, L.P., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7203 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment, entered on October 18, 2022, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Dan …
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Thomas v. Walmart, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8745 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Steve Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Walmart, his ...
Thomas v. Walmart, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8745 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Steve Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Walmart, his former employer, on his sexual harassment…
Continue Reading

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

In re Abbott Labs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5755, 96 F.4th 371 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2024) INTRODUCTION The underlying litigation in the matter before us sounds in patent and antitrust law. What we are prese ...
In re Abbott Labs., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5755, 96 F.4th 371 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2024) INTRODUCTION The underlying litigation in the matter before us sounds in patent and antitrust law. What we are presented with here, however, …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Retained Expert for Failure to Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Factors (Sixth Circuit) — The Importance of The Evidence Factor Cuts Both Ways: “The More Important The Proof, The Greater The Effect Of Preclusion, But Also The Greater The Harm In Tardy Disclosure”

RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7938 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024): *1 This case involves the alleged infringement of a copyright on software code used in an industrial contro ...
RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7938 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024): *1 This case involves the alleged infringement of a copyright on software code used in an industrial control system. This is the third…
Continue Reading
Previous17181920212223Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent 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

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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

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