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 “Is A Drastic Remedy That Should Be Imposed Only In Extreme Circumstances, Usually After Consideration Of Alternative, Less Drastic Sanctions” (2d Circuit)

Emamian v. Rockefeller Univ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26788 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
Emamian v. Rockefeller Univ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26788 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Dr. Effat …
Continue Reading

Mere Lack of Merit Not Enough – R. 11 Not Substitute for 12(b)(6)/56 — Court Needs Evidence Outside Complaint to Determine Factual Baselessness — Failure of Complaint to Put Defendant on Notice Not R 11 Violation — Forum Shopping/Improper Venue Not Enough for Dismissal, Just $

 James v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26593 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) (unpublished): ...
 James v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26593 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) (unpublished): Courts typically reserve the “death penalty” sanction of dismissal with prejudice for the most egregious cases—those that involve, for example, willful misconduct, bad faith, fraud, …
Continue Reading

R 37/Inherent Power (IHP): Decision Not to Sanction Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Clear and Convincing Evid for IHP — Rules 26/37 Primary Tools for Discovery Abuse, Not IHP — Fraud on Court: Judge May Leave Credibility Issue to Jury, Deny Sanction

 Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31909, 2020 WL 5948910 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2020):*1
 Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31909, 2020 WL 5948910 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2020):*1 This is a case about a disloyal employee, Daniel Feldman, the Defendant.1 After trial, a jury found that Feldman…
Continue Reading

“Summary Judgment Is the Put Up or Shut Up Moment in a Lawsuit”

In re Delta Phones, Inc., 2005 WL 3542667 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2005): Summary judgment is the “put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.” ...
In re Delta Phones, Inc., 2005 WL 3542667 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2005): Summary judgment is the “put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions: Dismissal with Prejudice and Attorney’s Fees for Pro Ses’ Persisting in Frivolous Venue and Service Arguments Despite Warnings from Court — No Protection from 41(b)

 Khan v. Hemosphere Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25726 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2020): These appeals arise from an action for patent infringement. Drs. Nazir Khan and Iftikhar Khan accused Hemosphere Inc., ...
Khan v. Hemosphere Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25726 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2020): These appeals arise from an action for patent infringement. Drs. Nazir Khan and Iftikhar Khan accused Hemosphere Inc., CryoLife Inc., and Merit Medical Systems, Inc., along …
Continue Reading

R. 37 & Inherent Power (IHP) Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference OK Not Disclosing Witness After Reliance on Wit. Required (26(a)(1), (e)) —Plain Error Rare in Civil Case — IHP: Narrow Exception to Bad Faith Requirement

 Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25793 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020): On Christmas Eve, 2014, Joyce Higgs tripped over a bucket in a dining area of the cruise ship Costa Lumi ...
Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25793 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020): On Christmas Eve, 2014, Joyce Higgs tripped over a bucket in a dining area of the cruise ship Costa Luminosa and sustained serious injuries …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Until Amount of Attorney’s Fees Is Set, No Final Order Or Appellate Jurisdiction Exists, Even If Fee Award Is Only One Part of Larger Award, Including Default Judgment and Dismissal of Counterclaims

 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Dade City's Wild Things, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26042 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2020): BY THE COURT: The People for the Ethical Treatment of Ani ...
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Dade City's Wild Things, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26042 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2020): BY THE COURT: The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.'s ("PETA") motion to dismiss…
Continue Reading

Common Core Doctrine: Fees Awardable for Claims Involving Common Facts Or Related Legal Theories, Even If Only One Triggers Fee-Shifting — Noncompliance with Bankruptcy Court Order Sanctionable via Striking Pleading on Analogy to Rule 37(b)

Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp. (Matter of Ridgeway), 2020 WL 5226553 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020): *1 For the last seven years, Christopher Martin Ridgeway and his former employer have waged scorched-earth lawfare against one another. Ridgeway has lost every battle and incurred millions of dollars in damages, sanctio ...
Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp. (Matter of Ridgeway), 2020 WL 5226553 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020): *1 For the last seven years, Christopher Martin Ridgeway and his former employer have waged scorched-earth lawfare against one another. Ridgeway has lost every battle…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions: Due Process—Flexible Notice, Substantial Compliance — OK to Issue OSC in 1 of 15 Cases & Dismiss All — Prisoner’s Knowledge of Own Conduct = Notice — Order Must State Specific Basis of Sxs — Types of Vexatious Lit Injn

Cobble v. U.S. Government, 816 Fed.Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Petitioner/Appellant Daniel Cobble1 (“Cobble”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice, as a sanction, his pro se a ...
Cobble v. U.S. Government, 816 Fed.Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Petitioner/Appellant Daniel Cobble1 (“Cobble”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice, as a sanction, his pro se actions, filed pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power/Rules 26, 37: Even Absent Spoliation, Evasive Discovery Action Punishable by Fee Award Calibrated Per Goodyear v. Haeger & Denial of 54(b) Costs — History, Importance of Jury Trial

Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC, 2020 WL 5229686 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020): *1 4JLJ, LLC provides oil well pump and frack services. A group of its employees sued 4JLJ under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that 4JLJ violated the FLSA’s overtime wage mandates. 4JLJ paid the Employees two different types of bonuses—a stag ...
Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC, 2020 WL 5229686 (5th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020): *1 4JLJ, LLC provides oil well pump and frack services. A group of its employees sued 4JLJ under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that 4JLJ violated the…
Continue Reading
Previous22232425262728Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

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