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

§ 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Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver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Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver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 LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank's foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland.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 LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank’s foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland.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

(1) Sanctions for Nonexistent Case (Generated by Artificial Intelligence) Cited to Court of Appeals: Referral to Grievance Panel and Disclosure of Opinion to Foreign Client, Translated; (2) Second Circuit Mistakenly Relies on Rule 11, Which Does Not Apply in Courts of Appeal, Rather Than FRAP 38, Inherent Power of the Court or Other Applicable Sanctions Power; (3) Rule 37 and Rule 41(b) Dismissal Factors (2d Cir.); (4) Collecting Local Rules Pertaining to Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings

Park v. Kim, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024): Per Curiam: Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from the August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ch ...
Park v. Kim, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024): Per Curiam: Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from the August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Sanctions: Dismissal for Single Failure to Attend Pretrial Conference Reversed — Pattern of Contumacious Conduct, Consideration of Lesser Sanctions, Warning Or, At Least<A Record Showing Relevant Factors Weight Required

Vivaldi Servicios de Seguridad, Inc. v. Maiso Grp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461, 2024 WL 615605 (1st Cir. Feb. 14, 2024): *1 May a district court dismiss a case for counsel’s unexcused failure to appear at the final pretrial confer ...
Vivaldi Servicios de Seguridad, Inc. v. Maiso Grp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461, 2024 WL 615605 (1st Cir. Feb. 14, 2024): *1 May a district court dismiss a case for counsel’s unexcused failure to appear at the final pretrial…
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

Recent Posts

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(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

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