Complex Lit Blog

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369, 2025 WL 978102 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025): Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a ...

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6961, *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kim Hartigan, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal district court against Hernand ...

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025): *1 This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the di ...

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

It is easy to be critical of Paul Weiss’s deal with the Trump Administration. But moral grandstanding aside, the Firm did the right thing. Clients invest months and years, and large sums of money, in their law firms. Clients lose all of that when the firm cannot act, or act effectively, for them. Yes, there is a financial side to the deal. There is also a self-preservation aspect. ...

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

Mula v. Mula, 2025 WL 869208 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Mula Jr. (“Mula”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against remaining Defendant-Appellees Alan Mula, Terry Wallace Campbell, Kristofer Biorn (“Biorn”), and the law ...

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

MEMORANDUM* Mark Steven Boyko ("Boyko") appeals a decision by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirming a bankruptcy court's nondischargeable judgment in favor of creditors August Barizon and Sara Boroumand (collectively "Appellees"). We have jurisdiction under

MEMORANDUM* Mark Steven Boyko (“Boyko”) appeals a decision by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming a bankruptcy court’s nondischargeable judgment in favor of creditors August Barizon and Sara Boroumand (collectively “Appellees”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. …

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ross, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6401 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Tremaine Ross, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the imposition of a sanction of attorney's fees under

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

United States v. Whigham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24014 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024): *** Whigham complains that Ganguli refused to file the brief that Whigham himself drafted. But that's not a good cause for substituting Ganguli.< ...

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Allison El v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24068 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished): Our decision in this appeal, issued on August 29, 2024, ordered Allison to show cause why the court should not impose a penalty under Federal Rule ...

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

Vartan HK Int'l Funds Invs. USA Ltd., LLC v. Paul Hastings LLP (In re Kwok), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5726 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the judgment of the ...

Vartan HK Int’l Funds Invs. USA Ltd., LLC v. Paul Hastings LLP (In re Kwok), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5726 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the judgment of the District Court entered on…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Recent Posts

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Archives

New York Office