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

Appeals: Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) Designating Judgment AND Any Judgment from Pending Post-Trial Motion Becomes Effective When Post-Trial Motion (e.g., Sanctions, Reconsideration) Is Decided BUT Is Effective Only As to the Designated Judgment — To Confer Appellate Jurisdiction Over Decision on Pending Motion. New Or Amended NOA Appealing from That Decision Is Necessary — Sometimes Other Documents Can Confer Appellate Jurisdiction (e.g., Docketing Statement) If Intent to Appeal Is Clear

Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6395 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024): *1 ...
Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6395 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024): *1 This case originates from a lending relationship between Plaintiffs—Jeffrey Frye and his companies The Wall Guy, Inc., and JR Contractors—and First State Bank (“the…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 and FRAP 46(c) Sanctions for Misrepresenting to Court of Appeals When Party Learned of the “New Evidence” Argued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) — When a Lawyer Raises a Frivolous Argument with the District Court, and That Issue Is Appealed and Re-Argued to the Court of Appeals by Someone Else, The Original Lawyer Can Be Sanctioned under § 1927 For Multiplying Proceedings — Recklessly Raising Frivolous Argument Satisfies Bad Faith Requirement for § 1927 in 9th Circuit — § 1927 Does Not Apply to Law Firms — § 1927 Applies to All Responsible Lawyers, Not Just Those Appearing of Record Or Licensed to Practice Before Sanctioning Court — Reviewing and Approving Filings by General Counsel or Supervising Attorney Suffices — FRAP 46(c): Violating Rules of Professional Ethics = “Conduct Unbecoming of the Court’s Bar” Violative of FRAP 46(c) — Financial Sanctions and Notifications to State Bars and District Courts

Caputo ex rel. United States of Am. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6126 (9th Cir ...
Caputo ex rel. United States of Am. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6126 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024): ORDER Petitioners Global Tungsten & Powders Corp. (GTP) and Gregory Caputo have filed a motion for sanctions against …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over The Merits of a Case, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment of Known Right) — Two Judge Concurrence Finds Strong Textual Argument There Is No Statutory Basis for the Existence of the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court

Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment of Known Right) — Two Judge Concurrence Finds Strong Textual Argument There Is No ...
Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Sixth Circuit Requires That A Party Seeking FRAP 38 Sanctions Must Show Both That An Appeal Lacks Merit And That The Appellant Took The Appeal For An Improper Purpose

Lea v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank's foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland. Courts have uniformly dismissed these suits. ...
Lea v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank’s foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland. Courts have uniformly dismissed these suits. But …
Continue Reading

(1) Agreements to Agree — Good Quote: “A Non-Binding Agreement To Negotiate Is Not A Binding Agreement To Close A Deal. When Negotiating Parties Cannot Agree And A Deal Falls Apart, They May Be Disappointed, But There Is No Breach Of Contract.” — (2) Damages for Breach of Covenant Not to Sue = Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Defending — (3) Does the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Apply to Letters of Intent? Undecided

White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rests., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4942 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2024) (unpublished): OPINION* RESTREPO, Circuit Judge A non- ...
White Winston Select Asset Funds, LLC v. Good Times Rests., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4942 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2024) (unpublished): OPINION* RESTREPO, Circuit Judge A non-binding agreement to negotiate is not a binding agreement to close a …
Continue Reading

Civil Contempt —Purposes: Compliance or Compensation — Clear and Convincing Evidence — Factors (6th Cir.): Court Order, Respondent’s Knowledge, Violation — Respondent’s Burden: Prove Present Inability to Comply — Spoliation of Tangible Evidence; Burden of Proof: Elements (6th Cir.) — Types of Sanctions — Severity Corresponds to Fault

NLRB v. Bannum, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4225 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024)  [**1]  PER CURIAM. In July 2023, we granted the National Labor Relations Board's petition for a protective restraining order prohibiting Bannum, Inc. and B ...
NLRB v. Bannum, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4225 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024)  [**1]  PER CURIAM. In July 2023, we granted the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for a protective restraining order prohibiting Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Factors for Determining Whether Nondisclosure in Violation of Rule 26(a)(1) Was “Substantially Justified” or “Harmless” (Sixth Circuit Factors); (2) Nondisclosure in Violation of Rule 26(a) Causes No Surprise Where Evidence Consists of “Basic Math” Calculation Applied to Data in Documents in Movant’s Possession

House v. Player's Dugout, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3181, 2024 WL 495998 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 202 ...
House v. Player’s Dugout, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3181, 2024 WL 495998 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024): *1 This appeal arises from a jury verdict apportioning liability and awarding damages to both parties. Dr. Thomas House and the…
Continue Reading

(1) Rule 26(a) Disclosure Violation — Even If Non-Disclosure of Witness Was Neither Substantially Justified Or Harmless, Court Can Render It Harmless by Reopening Discovery to Allow Deposition; (2) “Good Cause” for Modification of Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order Provided by Nondisclosure of Witness in Violation of Rule 26(a); (3) Court Has Inherent Authority to Modify Scheduling Order Even in the Absence of “Good Cause”

Middlebrooks v. Equifax, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3577, 2024 WL 631000 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024): PER CURIAM: *1 Lillie Middlebrooks, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary ...
Middlebrooks v. Equifax, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3577, 2024 WL 631000 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024): PER CURIAM: *1 Lillie Middlebrooks, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Equifax, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Reversed Under Demanding Plain Error Standard Where (1) Sanctions Motion Was Filed After the District Court Issued Its Decision, In Violation of Rule 11’s Safe Harbor (Rule 11(c)(2)) and (2) The District Court Failed to Describe The Offending Conduct And Furnish An Explanation for the Sanctions As Required by Rule 11(c)(6); (3) Good Quote: “Once an action is dismissed, a party may no longer move for sanctions under Rule 11”

Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 91 F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2024): After Deutsche Bank National Trust Company foreclosed on and sold his home, Nicholas Triantos sued various parties, including the law firm that represen ...
Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 91 F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2024): After Deutsche Bank National Trust Company foreclosed on and sold his home, Nicholas Triantos sued various parties, including the law firm that…
Continue Reading
Previous123456Next

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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