Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Joseph Hage Aaronson
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Award of Excess Expenses Incurred in Deposing Late-Disclosed Expert Witness on Eve of Trial — Argument That Late Disclosure = Harmless Error Because Same Expenses Would Have Been Incurred Earlier Rejected — Late Disclosure “Made The Matter Much More Urgent, Time Consuming And Expensive As Trial Loomed Less Than A Month Away”

McDowell v. Livonia Hotel Bus., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17819 (6th Cir. July 11, 2023): This civil suit arises out of an armed robbery that took place at a motel in Livonia, Michigan. Plaintiffs, Raymond McDowel ...
McDowell v. Livonia Hotel Bus., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17819 (6th Cir. July 11, 2023): This civil suit arises out of an armed robbery that took place at a motel in Livonia, Michigan. Plaintiffs, Raymond McDowell and Taj Dorsey,…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 and Inherent Power Sanctions – While Sanctions Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, District Court’s Invocation of Its Inherent Power Is Reviewed De Novo — Due Process Violated by Failure to Apprise Individuals that They Were Personally at Risk of Monetary Sanctions—That Sanctions Motion Sought Sanctions Against Corporation “Or Others” Insufficient — Post-Sanctions Opportunity to Be Heard Insufficient — Rule 37 Sanctions Must Be Both “Just” and “Related to the Particular ‘Claim’” — Factors Governing Litigation-Ending Sanctions (5th Circuit) — 6. What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment —6. What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment — What Is a “Litigation-Ending” Sanction Is A “Practical” Determination and Broader Than Dismissal with Prejudice and Default Judgment — Recklessness Insufficient for Case-Ending Sanction (Bad Faith Required) — Rule 37 Authorizes Joint-and-Several Liability on a Party and Its Agents —Attorney’s Fee Award Must be Calculated Using the Lodestar Process

CEATS, Inc. v. TicketNetwork, Inc., 71 F.4th 413 (5th Cir. 2023):  Opinion This consolidated appeal concerns the injunctive and monetary sanctions that the district court imposed after a company and three individuals violated the court’s protective order. The company and the individuals challenge the s ...
CEATS, Inc. v. TicketNetwork, Inc., 71 F.4th 413 (5th Cir. 2023):  Opinion This consolidated appeal concerns the injunctive and monetary sanctions that the district court imposed after a company and three individuals violated the court’s protective order. The company and…
Continue Reading

Trump Lawyers’ Sanctions Case in Sixth Circuit: On Detailed Analysis, Several Sanctions Overturned Or Curtailed — Detailed Precis Below

King v. Whitmer, 71 F.4th 511 (6th Cir. 2023) Key Points  (full opinion follows) Rule 11 Sanctions:  Political Speech Outside Courtroom No Basis for Improper Purpose Inference Where It Does Not Evidence Improper Purpose Such As Harassment Or Delay — Contestin ...
King v. Whitmer, 71 F.4th 511 (6th Cir. 2023) Key Points  (full opinion follows) Rule 11 Sanctions:  Political Speech Outside Courtroom No Basis for Improper Purpose Inference Where It Does Not Evidence Improper Purpose Such As Harassment Or Delay — …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Improper Purpose — Even If Paper Filed Not Only to Vindicate Rights But Also for Some Other Purpose, Sanctions Inappropriate Unless the Other Purpose Is Undertaken in Bad Faith and Is So Excessive As to Eliminate A Proper Purpose

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19300 (4th Cir. July 27, 2023) (unpublis ...
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19300 (4th Cir. July 27, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM: *1 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: § 1927 Authorizes Only Fees Incurred “Because of” Sanctionable Conduct, Not Fees Merely Related to It — Where Responsive Brief Fails to Make Necessary Disclosure Necessitating Reply, All Costs Associated with Reply Are Awardable, Not Merely Portions Specifically Prompted by Improper Non-Disclosure — Party Appealing § 1927 Sanctions Bears Burden of Showing Error in Fee — Setting Fees Is A Matter of Rough Justice and Should Not Result in Second Major Litigation — Where Time Records Excusably Imprecise Due to Unawareness of Misconduct, Rough Estimate of Fees Allocable to Misconduct Suffices — Fees Reimbursed by Insurance Still “Incurred” Within, And Awardable under § 1927 — Law of The Case Doctrine Inapplicable, Even If Same Issue Involved, Where Different Legally Relevant Factors Are Under Consideration Or Facts Are Different

Chung v. Lamb, 73 F.4th 824 (10th Cir. 2023): After a prior remand to the district court, we review the propriety of that court’s revised award of attorney fees under
Chung v. Lamb, 73 F.4th 824 (10th Cir. 2023): After a prior remand to the district court, we review the propriety of that court’s revised award of attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits monetary sanction when…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions: Rule 37(e)(2)’s Intent-To-Deprive Standard Is The Same Bad Faith Standard Historically Applied In Pre- Rule 37 Spoliation Cases And Still Applied In Cases Of Non-Electronic Spoliation — Prejudice To The Defendant Need Not Be Shown Under Rule 37(b)(2) — Even Though Litigation Hold Issued, Bad Faith Reasonable Inferred From Failing To (i) Back Up Text Messages, (ii) Educate Recipients About Litigation Hold, (iii) Collect Cell Phone Data For 7 Months, And (iv) Suspend Policy Of Wiping Data — No Affirmative Act Is Required To Sustain A Finding Of Bad Faith Based On Circumstantial Evidence, Either Under Rule 37(e) Or Bad Faith Case Law

Skanska United States Civil Se. Inc. v. Bagelheads, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19942 (11th Cir. Aug. ...
Skanska United States Civil Se. Inc. v. Bagelheads, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19942 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2023): *1 Hurricane Sally hit Pensacola Bay with a vengeance in September 2020, and 28 barges moored in the Bay were not…
Continue Reading

Post-Judgment Sanctions — Circuit Split: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Motion for § 1927 Sanctions Made After Appellate Mandate Issues (Appears to Require Motion Prior to Filing of Notice of Appeal) — Post-Mandate Motion Can Seem Like an Ambush of a Losing Party Prepared to Accept a Loss Without a Pending Sanctions Motion — In Accord With All Circuits: District Court Retains Jurisdiction To Entertain Motion To Impose Inherent Power Sanctions Made After Mandate Issues — When a Number of Other Circuits Reject a Circuit’s Position, and No Other Circuit Accepts It, The Interest in Avoiding Inter-Circuit Conflict May Justify Abandoning The Position

Feehan v. Evers, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19901 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER On December 1, 2020, plaintiff-appellee William Feehan filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ...
Feehan v. Evers, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19901 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER On December 1, 2020, plaintiff-appellee William Feehan filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint sought …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions (Criminal Case): Punitive Sanctions Awardable Even If Some Non-Frivolous Arguments Are Combined With The Frivolous Arguments — Is Bad Faith A Prerequisite for Inherent Power Sanctions Other Than Attorney Fees? — Factors In Assessing Financial Penalties Include Ability To Pay And Likelihood That Financial Penalty Will Have Some Deterrent Effect

United States v. Akers, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20142, *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023): *1 Montgomery Akers appeals from a district court order imposing upon him a $40,000 punitive san ...
United States v. Akers, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20142, *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023): *1 Montgomery Akers appeals from a district court order imposing upon him a $40,000 punitive sanction for advancing frivolous arguments and assertions in a request …
Continue Reading

INHERENT POWER SANCTIONS FOR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND CAUSATION, PRECLUSION OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DEFENSE — DETERRENCE IMPORTANT DUE TO SPOLIATOR’S “DEMONSTRATED PATTERN OF ABUSE” — DUE PROCESS SATISFIED BY OPPONENT’S MOTION, WHICH PROVIDED CLEAR NOTICE OF THE FACT SANCTION WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE REASONS WHY, AND THE TYPES OF SANCTIONS BEING CONSIDERED

Anderson v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 2023 WL 4418221 (S.D. Iowa July 6, 2023): INTRODUCTION *1 In this Federal Employers’ Liability Act case, Plaintiff Bradley A. Anderson alleges he was injured when he hit his head on a sign placed too close to the railroad tracks when he was working for Defendant BNSF Railway Company. Ande ...
Anderson v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 2023 WL 4418221 (S.D. Iowa July 6, 2023): INTRODUCTION *1 In this Federal Employers’ Liability Act case, Plaintiff Bradley A. Anderson alleges he was injured when he hit his head on a sign placed too …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power — Do Federal Courts Have the Power to Impose Inherent Power Sanctions in Criminal Cases? — Undecided in Sixth Circuit — Vexatious Litigant Filing Restriction Requires Findings That Party Has Engaged in Repetitive, Frivolous Litigation — Federal Courts Lack Coram Nobis Jurisdiction Over a Criminal Defendant While the Defendant Is In Custody — A Deported Defendant Is Not In Custody, Even If Technically on Supervised Release, Which Typically Counts As “Custody”

United States v. Petlechkov, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16349, 2023 WL 4230905 (6th Cir. June 28, 2023):
United States v. Petlechkov, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16349, 2023 WL 4230905 (6th Cir. June 28, 2023):   *1 This is Dimitar Petlechkov’s third time before us. He now challenges the final forfeiture order entered in his criminal case…
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

Recent Posts

Section 1927 Sanctions: (1) No Bad Faith Required—Intentionality or Knowing Disregard Suffice (Sixth Circuit); (2) Filing Complaint Collaterally Attacking Prior Appellate Decision Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplied the Proceedings; (3) Lump Sum Award of $5,000 under § 1927 Affirmed

(1) Section 1927 Sanctions Precluded by Denial of Summary Judgment; (2) Filing of Complaint Found Meritless on Appeal Not Automatically Sanctionable under § 1927 (Sixth Circuit); (3) Post-Judgment Rule 11 Motion Fails for Failure to Provide 21-Day Safe Harbor

Inherent Power Sanctions: (1) Bad Faith in Manufacturing Personal Injuries Supposedly Caused by Accident—By Lying to Doctors, Court, Opponent And Plaintiff’s Own Counsel—Warranted Dismissal of All Non-Economic Damages Claims; (2) Proper under Goodyear v. Haeger to Award All Attorney’s Fees Incurred in Defending Action Initiated in Bad Faith; (3) Tenth Circuit Factors Governing Dismissal for Discovery Misconduct; (4) “The Lodestar Calculation Produces a Presumptively Reasonable Fee” (Good Quote); (5) Furnishing Business Records Certification Just Prior to Trial Violates Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) Requirement That Opponent Be Given “A Fair Opportunity to Challenge” The Certification and Record

Experts: “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Is Neither A Rule Of Legal Causation,, Nor Typically A Sufficient Methodological Basis For An Expert Opinion On Causation” (Good Quote) – Medical Testimony on Diagnosis vs. Etiology (Cause of Symptoms vs. Cause of Disorder)

(1) Experts: 701 vs. 702 Testimony — Business Owner/Officer May Offer Lay Opinion of Value or Future Profits Based on Particularized Knowledge Derived from Position And Straightforward, Common Sense Calculations — (2) CFO’s Testimony Based on Previous Professional Experience Creating Budget Forecasts and Utilizing Complex, Sophisticated Formulas Improperly Admitted Under 701, Constituted 702 Testimony — (3) Contract Interpretation: A Broad Heading Cannot Override the Specific Language of a Particular Clause — (4) If Appellant Does Not Challenge Trial Court’s Alternate Ground for Its Ruling, Appellate Court May Affirm

Contract Formation Online — When Is A Customer Bound by Unread/Unclicked-On Terms And Conditions? — 2-Part Test: Inquiry Notice & Unambiguous Manifestation of Consent — What Is A “Reasonably Prudent” Internet User? — When Is That Person on Inquiry Notice? — What Constitutes An Unambiguous Manifestation of Consent?

Federal Court of Appeals Is Bound by Decisions of State Intermediate Appellate Courts Absent Persuasive Evidence The State’s Highest Court Would Reach a Different Decision

Rule 37 Sanctions – Default Judgment: (1) 4-Factor Test for Litigation-Ending Sanctions for Discovery Abuse (Fifth Circuit); (2) Deletion and Manipulation of Source Code As Spoliation; (3) Detailed Consideration of Lesser Sanctions Excused Where It Is Clear Lesser Sanctions Would Have Been Futile—Especially Where the Misconduct Was Egregious And Repeated, And There Has Been A Warning; (4) Giving A Second Or Third Chance Before Imposing Litigation-Ending Sanctions Itself Amounts to a Lesser Sanction; (5) A Default Judgment Is Sometimes The Only Practicable Solution; (6) Where Party Appealing Denial of Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration Failed to Object to the R&R Adopted by the District Court, Appellate Review Is for Plain Error Only

Section 1927 Sanctions: (1) While Review Is Generally Abuse-of-Discretion, It Is De Novo When Exercise of Discretion Depends on a Purely Legal Issue; (2) 4. Survival on Rule 56 and 52 Motions On The Same Grounds Used Later To Sanction Plaintiffs’ Counsel Shows That They Didn’t Pursue Their Claims Recklessly; (3) Absent a Misrepresentation to the Court, Parties May Rely on Success in Rule 56 and 52 Motions As Indicators That Their Claims Were Objectively Reasonable and Suitable for Trial, Although Court Notes That Survival on Rule 52 and 56 Motions Doesn’t Automatically Preclude § 1927 Sanctions; Court Cannot Impose § 1927 Sanctions For Failing To Sustain Burden Of Proof Where Court Accepted That Quantum Of Evidence As Sufficient On Summary Judgment; Survival on Daubert Motion Precludes § 1927 Sanctions for Continued Reliance on Expert to Proceed to Trial

Inherent Power Sanctions: (1) Court May Enter Dismissal on the Merits Even If It Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction — (2) Bad Faith or Willful Abuse of Judicial process Required in Fifth Circuit — (3) Opposing Party Need Not Be Prejudiced — (4) All Aspects of Inherent Power Sanctions Award, Including Invocation of Power, Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — (5) District Court Must Sufficiently Articulate Reasons for Sanctions Award

Archives
Joseph Hage Aaronson

New York Office

© 2023 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice