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 11 Sanctions for Pursuing Issue of First Impression — Tenuous Nature of Legal Theory Coupled with Inadequate Factual Investigation — Rule 11 Factors (Eleventh Circuit)

Walther v. McIntosh, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987 (11th Cir. July 23, 2014): Dorothy Walther, Howard Walther, and Phillips P. O'Shaughnessy appeal the district court's order imposing sanctions against O'Shaughnessy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for his conduct in pursuing a lawsuit in the district  [*2]
Walther v. McIntosh, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987 (11th Cir. July 23, 2014): Dorothy Walther, Howard Walther, and Phillips P. O'Shaughnessy appeal the district court's order imposing sanctions against O'Shaughnessy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for his conduct…
Continue Reading

Does a Magistrate Judge Have Authority to Decide a Motion for Spoliation Sanctions under Rule 37 or the Court’s Inherent Power? As with Rule 11, the Case Law Is Split

In re Estate of Jackson v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96355 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014)): Plaintiff the Estate of Willie Jackson ("plaintiff" or the "Estate") brings this action against numerous defendants associated with Suffolk County (the "County Defendants") based on an incident on April 2, ...
In re Estate of Jackson v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96355 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014)): Plaintiff the Estate of Willie Jackson ("plaintiff" or the "Estate") brings this action against numerous defendants associated with Suffolk County (the "County…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Recklessness May Suffice to Show Bad Faith — Multiplicity Essential: “Section 1927 Only Authorizes Shifting Fees That Are Associated with the Persistent Prosecution of a Meritless Claim.” (Good Quotes)

Hamaker v. Enerco Grp., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9868 (5th Cir. May 28, 2014): Patricia Ayala brought suit in Louisiana state court  [*2] against a manufacturer, its insurers, and a retail store alleging that defects in a propane heater caused the death of her husband. The case was removed to federal court by the manufactur ...
Hamaker v. Enerco Grp., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9868 (5th Cir. May 28, 2014): Patricia Ayala brought suit in Louisiana state court  [*2] against a manufacturer, its insurers, and a retail store alleging that defects in a propane heater …
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence Based on Content and Context — Authenticating Testimony Need Not “Be Free from Weakness or Doubt” — Deficiencies in Chain of Custody for Factfinder

State v. Ruiz, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 855 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2014): Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting e-mail records into evidence. Defendant objected at trial to the admissibility of the e-mail evidence in Exhibit 13, but made no objection to the admissibility of other e-mails. We revi ...
State v. Ruiz, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 855 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2014): Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting e-mail records into evidence. Defendant objected at trial to the admissibility of the e-mail evidence in…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Neither Fault Nor Willfulness Required — Opportunity to Submit Briefs = Opportunity to Be Heard, Satisfies Due Process

Remington v. Mathson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9849 (9th Cir. May 28, 2014): The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions on Remington because Remington's failure to comply with expert witness disclosures was neither substantially justified nor harmless. See Yeti by Molly Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1 ...
Remington v. Mathson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9849 (9th Cir. May 28, 2014): The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions on Remington because Remington's failure to comply with expert witness disclosures was neither substantially justified…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Imposed Where Rule 11 Substantively Violated But Inapt Due to Timeliness — Applying “Rule 11-Type Analysis” OK — Pro Se Can’t Recover Attorney’s Fees — Can’t Award Sanctions to Pay Unpaid Judgment

Peer v. Lewis, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13259 (11th Cir. July 9, 2014): Daniel Warfield Lewis, proceeding pro se, appeals the order imposing sanctions against three lawyers who represented Christopher Peer in an underlying action brought against Lewis under the Fair Credit Reporting  [*2] Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. He challen ...
Peer v. Lewis, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13259 (11th Cir. July 9, 2014): Daniel Warfield Lewis, proceeding pro se, appeals the order imposing sanctions against three lawyers who represented Christopher Peer in an underlying action brought against Lewis under the …
Continue Reading

FSIA Does Not Protect Counsel of Sovereign from § 1782 Discovery — Second Circuit Affirms Denial of 1782 Discovery but Sua Sponte Orders Documents Not Be Destroyed Due to Fluidity of Foreign Proceedings

Mare Shipping LLC v. Squire Sanders (US) LLP, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14525 (2d Cir. July 30, 2014): Appellants Mare Shipping Inc. ("Mare") and Apostolos Mangouras ("Mangouras") appeal from a decision of the District Court denying their motion to compel discovery for use in a foreign litigation, brought pursuant to 28 ...
Mare Shipping LLC v. Squire Sanders (US) LLP, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14525 (2d Cir. July 30, 2014): Appellants Mare Shipping Inc. ("Mare") and Apostolos Mangouras ("Mangouras") appeal from a decision of the District Court denying their motion to compel…
Continue Reading

Failure to Pay Sanctions = Civil Contempt — No Vicarious §1927 Liability — Every Lawyer Needn’t Vet Every Filing — Adverse Inference for 5th Amend. on Sanctions Motion — What Is Timely Is up to District Court — The Rule of Holes (Good Quotes)

Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Smith, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14725 (7th Cir. July 31, 2014): The first rule of holes, according to an old saying, is to stop digging. The two appeals before us bring that to mind, for reasons that will become apparent. The first, No. 13-3801, comes to us from the district court's order granting a m ...
Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Smith, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14725 (7th Cir. July 31, 2014): The first rule of holes, according to an old saying, is to stop digging. The two appeals before us bring that to mind, for reasons …
Continue Reading

Does a Magistrate Judge Have Authority to Deny a Motion to Amend a Complaint If Denial Effectively Dismisses Certain Claims (E.g., Because Statute of Limitations Has Expired)? Case Law Split

Duncan v. City of N.Y., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96214 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014): Plaintiff Shamaine Duncan ("Duncan") seeks leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in order to substitute the name of police officer Richard Dinkle ("Dinkle") for that of one of the "John Doe" defendants. See D ...
Duncan v. City of N.Y., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96214 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014): Plaintiff Shamaine Duncan ("Duncan") seeks leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in order to substitute the name of police officer Richard Dinkle ("Dinkle") for that …
Continue Reading

Judicial Estoppel — Majority Rule — Prior Success, Clear Inconsistency and Impact on Judicial Integrity Requirements

Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13179 (2d Cir. July 11, 2014): "Judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 227 n.8 ...
Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13179 (2d Cir. July 11, 2014): "Judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument …
Continue Reading
Previous238239240241242243244Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

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