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

Spoliation — “Intent” for purposes of Rule 37(e)(2) Is Satisfied If It Is Reasonable to Infer That the Alleged Spoliator Purposefully destroyed evidence to Avoid Its Litigation Obligations

Estate of Moreno v. Corr. Healthcare Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108370, 2020 WL 5740265 (E.D. Wash. June 1, 2020): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
Estate of Moreno v. Corr. Healthcare Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108370, 2020 WL 5740265 (E.D. Wash. June 1, 2020): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 37(e) MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Rule 37(e) Motion…
Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Joins Seventh in Holding That The Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Third-Party Non-Lawyer (Here, Ex-Lawyer) Engaged in The Unauthorized Practice of Law

United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023) (unpublished): *1 Following a trial by jury, Defendant Elmer Jones appeals his conviction on four counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of
United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023) (unpublished): *1 Following a trial by jury, Defendant Elmer Jones appeals his conviction on four counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation…
Continue Reading

Fourfold Purpose of Rule 37 Sanctions

Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223074, *13, 2022 WL 17576345, *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2022) (Report and Recommendation), modified and adopted (sanction affirmed), Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., ...
Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223074, *13, 2022 WL 17576345, *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2022) (Report and Recommendation), modified and adopted (sanction affirmed), Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., 2022 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Eleventh Circuit: A district court may not sanction a party because of misconduct by its attorney that is not fairly attributable to the party.

Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244, 2023 WL 309034 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2023) ...
Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244, 2023 WL 309034 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2023) (per curiam): *1 Victoria Carter sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, after she slipped and fell in a puddle on the…
Continue Reading

An Unaffiliated Third Party Has No Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant — Compliance with Law Is a Valid Defense to a Spoliation Motion

Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and or ...
Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties.…
Continue Reading

$500 Sanction Under Rule 16(f)(1) Does Not Require Full Criminal Contempt Procedures, Goodyear Notwithstanding — Due Process Failure If Sanctions Imposed For Reasons Not Set Forth in Order to Show Cause — Rule 16(f) Does Not Authorize Sanctions for Lack of Candor, Unlike Rule 11

Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways:  “Taibi’s reliance on
Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways:  “Taibi’s reliance on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), is misplaced. …
Continue Reading

Even If Parties Share a Discovery Vendor, the Producing Party Bears the Burden of Ensuring That Its Directions to the Vendor Are Complete And Accurate — The Producing Party Must Certify Its Responses and Production under Rule 26(g)

Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection "must be signe ...
Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection “must be signed by at least one attorney of record.” …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 sanctions must flow from the discovery violation

ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no discovery violation and no established harm to ADASA. Cf.
ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no …
Continue Reading

The Gibson Dunn Sanctions Case — Key Takeaways and Full Opinion

In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): "The organization has 'a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)( ...
In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): “The organization has ‘a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to …
Continue Reading

§ 1447(c) Sanctions: No Bad Faith Required; Abuse of Discretion Review — Evidence on Sanctions Motions: Rule 408 Does Not Bar Consideration of Settlement Discussions to Prove Bad Faith in Connection with a Sanctions Proceeding (Here, Relevant to Size of Sanctions Award) — Adequate Opportunity to Be Heard Afforded by Allowing Supplemental Briefing

Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state court against Defendant ...
Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state…
Continue Reading
Previous19202122232425Next

Recent Posts

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

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

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