Complex Lit Blog

Is a Court Officer Entitled to Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity — or Only Qualified Immunity — When Using Excessive Force to Remove a Person from the Courtroom pursuant to a Judge’s Order? Circuit Split

Ingram v. Township of Deptford, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34031 (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2012): A Circuit split exists with respect to whether a court officer is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity when the officer allegedly uses excessive force to remove a person from a courtroom pursuant to a judge's order. The Third Circuit has not addr ...

A Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) May Only be Made on the Same Specific Grounds as the Pre-Verdict Motion under Rule 50(a)

Lore v. City of Syracuse, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1954 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2012): Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that "[a] motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). The principal purpose of the requirement that any such ...

Lore v. City of Syracuse, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1954 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2012): Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that “[a] motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made…

Fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3) — Elements — Possible Circuit Split as to Standard of Review — No Fraud on the Court for Failure to Advise Judge of Side Settlement When Presenting Consent Judgment for Approval

General Medicine, PC v. Horizon/CMS Health Care Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7186 (6th Cir. April 10, 2012): This matter began as a contract dispute between General and Horizon in the Eastern District of Michigan.... HealthSouth acquired Horizon in 1997 during the pendency of this suit, but never became a party.... In 2001, while the cas ...

Communications with Unretained Experts, Unprotected by Rule 26(b)(B)(4)(C), Are Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege — Any Exceptions? — Affiants on Preliminary Injunction = Testifying Experts

Graco, Inc. v. PMC Global, Inc., 2011 WL 666056 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2011): In connection with Graco’s motion for a preliminary injunction *** and opposition to PMC’s motion for summary judgment ***, Graco submitted [numerous] affidavits.... The Court notes that Weinberger, Mulder, Farrow, and Pagano are Graco employees (collectivel ...

Updated Article on Internet & Email Evidence (Part 2)

Download associated file: Internet Email Social Media Evidence Part 2.pdf Part 2 of the updated version of Internet and Email Evidence, as published this month in The Practical Litigator, is linked above, in PDF format. Part 1 was published in February and is li ...

First-Filed Rule Bars Federal Declaratory Judgment Action Filed after State Court DJ Action — Brillhart-Wilton Appears to Be Decisive— Unclear Whether Court Would Apply First-Filed Rule in Non-DJ Context, Where Circuits Are Split

Catlin Specialty Ins. Co. v. Plato Constr. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36494 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2012): a. General Applicability of the First-Filed Rule to Co-pending Parallel State and Federal Litigations Under the First-Filed Rule, "'[i]n all cases of federal concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession ...

Reformation Due to Mutual Mistake Requires “Exceptional Circumstances” Where Sophisticated Parties Entered Detailed, Heavily-Negotiated Agreement — No Unjust Enrichment If Written Contract

Simkin v. Blank, 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. April 3, 2012): The parties, represented by counsel, spent two years negotiating a detailed 22-page settlement agreement, executed in June 2006. In August 2006, the settlement agreement was incorporated, but not merged, into the parties' final judgment of divorce. The settleme ...

Bad Faith Conduct Need Not Cause Harm to be Sanctionable — § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms — District Court May Sanction Frivolous Appeals That Are Withdrawn — Entire Cost of Sanctions Motion Awardable Even If Denied in Part

Enmon v. Arnold & Itkin LLP, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6986 (2d Cir. April 6, 2012): The sanctions imposed on Arnold & Itkin arose out of Michael Enmon's attempts to obtain a subordinated loan from Prospect to complete his acquisition of Caprock Pipe & Supply LP ("Caprock LP"), a company in the business of purchasing, refurbishing ...

Enmon v. Arnold & Itkin LLP, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6986 (2d Cir. April 6, 2012): The sanctions imposed on Arnold & Itkin arose out of Michael Enmon’s attempts to obtain a subordinated loan from Prospect to complete his acquisition…

Spoliation — Failure to Prove Evidence Ever Existed Precludes Sanction — Corporate “Best Practices” Do Not Represent Policy That, If Violated, Might Be Deemed Spoliative

Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.., 670 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2012): Plaintiff-appellant Armando Gomez, a Colombian national, sued defendant-appellee Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., after he slipped and fell while shopping.*** On June 19, 2007, the plaintiff entered the defendant's supermarket in North Andover, Massachusetts. While ...

Notice of Appeal from Order Imposing Monetary Sanction Must be Filed within 30 Days — No “Separate Document” for Judgment Need be Entered under Rule 58 — Rule 54(d)(2)(E) Inapplicable — Nonmonetary Sanction?

Feldman v. Olin Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3578 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012): The appellants are lawyers who represented the plaintiff in this employment discrimination case. One of the defendants, Global Brass and Copper, Inc., moved the district court for sanctions, pursuant both to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and (c)(1) and to the court's inh ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Is a Court Officer Entitled to Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity — or Only Qualified Immunity — When Using Excessive Force to Remove a Person from the Courtroom pursuant to a Judge’s Order? Circuit Split

A Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) May Only be Made on the Same Specific Grounds as the Pre-Verdict Motion under Rule 50(a)

Fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3) — Elements — Possible Circuit Split as to Standard of Review — No Fraud on the Court for Failure to Advise Judge of Side Settlement When Presenting Consent Judgment for Approval

Communications with Unretained Experts, Unprotected by Rule 26(b)(B)(4)(C), Are Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege — Any Exceptions? — Affiants on Preliminary Injunction = Testifying Experts

Updated Article on Internet & Email Evidence (Part 2)

First-Filed Rule Bars Federal Declaratory Judgment Action Filed after State Court DJ Action — Brillhart-Wilton Appears to Be Decisive— Unclear Whether Court Would Apply First-Filed Rule in Non-DJ Context, Where Circuits Are Split

Reformation Due to Mutual Mistake Requires “Exceptional Circumstances” Where Sophisticated Parties Entered Detailed, Heavily-Negotiated Agreement — No Unjust Enrichment If Written Contract

Bad Faith Conduct Need Not Cause Harm to be Sanctionable — § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms — District Court May Sanction Frivolous Appeals That Are Withdrawn — Entire Cost of Sanctions Motion Awardable Even If Denied in Part

Spoliation — Failure to Prove Evidence Ever Existed Precludes Sanction — Corporate “Best Practices” Do Not Represent Policy That, If Violated, Might Be Deemed Spoliative

Notice of Appeal from Order Imposing Monetary Sanction Must be Filed within 30 Days — No “Separate Document” for Judgment Need be Entered under Rule 58 — Rule 54(d)(2)(E) Inapplicable — Nonmonetary Sanction?

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

Archives

New York Office