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

Pro Se Litigant Sanctioned $10,000 For Filing Brief (Prepared by a “Consultant”) Containing AI-Generated Fictitious Cases

Kruse v. Karlen, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 62 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2024): Opinion Introduction Jonathan R. Karlen ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's grant of final summary judgment to Molly Kruse ("Respon ...
Kruse v. Karlen, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 62 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2024): Opinion Introduction Jonathan R. Karlen (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of final summary judgment to Molly Kruse (“Respondent”). Due to numerous fatal briefing deficiencies…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Whether Allegedly Non-Party Parent Corp. Compelled to Arbitrate Must Be Tried to Resolve Fact Issues Over Nomenclature And “Implicitly Agreed To Be Mutually Bound” By Arbitration Clause

James v. RPS Holdings, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1283 Opinion   PER CURIAM: The issue in this case arises from a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action. We consider whether there was a gen ...
James v. RPS Holdings, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1283 Opinion   PER CURIAM: The issue in this case arises from a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action. We consider whether there was a genuine issue of…
Continue Reading

Experts: Opinion Based on Specified Literature Properly Excluded As Irrelevant After District Judge Read The Literature And Correctly Concluded It Did Not Say What The Expert Claimed — Correlation Is Not Causation

Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1499 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) Deaths by suicide have increased nationally over recent years, and now roughly 48,000 people die annually from suicide. And over 50% of those suicides w ...
Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1499 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) Deaths by suicide have increased nationally over recent years, and now roughly 48,000 people die annually from suicide. And over 50% of…
Continue Reading

ChatGBT Evidence Excluded As “Notorious for Inventing False Information About Market Rates”

M.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13836 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2024) (R&R) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge. TO THE HONORABLE J ...
M.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13836 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2024) (R&R) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge. TO THE HONORABLE JOHN P. CRONAN: On behalf of her son K.B., M.B.…
Continue Reading

Federal Post-Judgment Interest Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c)(4), Applies to Adversary Proceedings in Bankruptcy, Unless a More Particular Provision of the Bankruptcy Code Dictates A Different Result (Issue of First Impression in Fifth Circuit)

Carmichael v. Balke (In re Imperial Petro. Recovery Corp.), 84 F.4th 264 (5th Cir. 2023): [*268]  Per Curiam: This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. ...
Carmichael v. Balke (In re Imperial Petro. Recovery Corp.), 84 F.4th 264 (5th Cir. 2023): [*268]  Per Curiam: This appeal arises from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. I. This litigation stems…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal with Prejudice Appropriate for Threats of Violence Or Other Insubordination That Disables The Judiciary From Functioning

Freeman v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31213 (7th Cir. Nov.  22, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER Dismissal of a lawsuit, although a severe sanction, is sometimes warranted. The district court properly dismissed this suit file ...
Freeman v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31213 (7th Cir. Nov.  22, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER Dismissal of a lawsuit, although a severe sanction, is sometimes warranted. The district court properly dismissed this suit filed by Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Appropriate to Punish Violation of Vexatious Litigant Injunction

Johnson v. Taco Bell Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31370 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023): ORDER Alfred A. Johnson, Sr., a pro se Ohio prisoner, appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his civil action and imposition of filing restric ...
Johnson v. Taco Bell Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31370 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023): ORDER Alfred A. Johnson, Sr., a pro se Ohio prisoner, appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his civil action and imposition of filing restrictions.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Require Willful Disobedience of Court Order Or Act Taken in Bad Faith, Vexatiously, Wantonly or For Oppressive Reasons — Finding of Bad Faith Warranted for Knowingly or Recklessly Raising Frivolous Argument Or Arguing Meritorious Claim for Purposes of Harassing Opponent

Rooter Hero Phx., Inc. v. Beebe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32661 (9th Cir Dec. 11, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs Rooter Hero Phoenix, Inc. and Call Pro's, Inc. appeal the distr ...
Rooter Hero Phx., Inc. v. Beebe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32661 (9th Cir Dec. 11, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs Rooter Hero Phoenix, Inc. and Call Pro’s, Inc. appeal the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions on their counsel under …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 And 28 U.S.C. § 1927 Sanctions on Appeal — “Having A Steep Hill To Climb On Appeal Does Not Make An Appeal Frivolous” (Good Quote)

Buck v. Compton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33988 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023): *1 Thomas Buck, a former financial advisor, defrauded several of his clients, including Janice Compton. Following Buck’s criminal conviction for fraud, Compton ...
Buck v. Compton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33988 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023): *1 Thomas Buck, a former financial advisor, defrauded several of his clients, including Janice Compton. Following Buck’s criminal conviction for fraud, Compton sued Buck, and the parties…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Complaint — Two-Pronged Inquiry: (a) Whether Complaint Is Objectively Frivolous and (b) Whether Attorney Conducted A Reasonable Inquiry; (2) Relevant Factors Include Access To Information, Experience Of Attorney Versus The Level Of Specialized Expertise Necessary, Whether The Allegations Are Related To Knowledge, Purpose, Or Intent, The Relation Of Allegedly Frivolous Claim To The Pleading As A Whole, Length Of Time The Attorney Had To Investigate, And The Complexity Of The Case

Persian Gulf, Inc. v. Alon United States Energy, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34169 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, ...
Persian Gulf, Inc. v. Alon United States Energy, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34169 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated cases, Defendant-Appellant Alon USA Energy, Inc. (Alon) appeals the district court’s denial of its…
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

Recent Posts

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

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

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