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

Sanctions — § 1927 — Post-Judgment Jurisdiction

The Fifth Circuit upheld the imposition of § 1927 sanctions more than a year after the frivolous lawsuit had been dismissed (the plaintiff sued the wrong doctor) in Ratliff v. Gibson, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28664 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2007). Looking to Rule 11 precedent, Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the Court that: “Requests for attorneys' fees and ...
The Fifth Circuit upheld the imposition of § 1927 sanctions more than a year after the frivolous lawsuit had been dismissed (the plaintiff sued the wrong doctor) in Ratliff v. Gibson, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28664 (5th Cir. Nov. 13,…
Continue Reading

Securities — Confidential Informants via Newspaper

A substantial body of law addresses the extent to which a securities fraud complaint may rest on allegations based on the plaintiffs’ confidential informants (see our post of July 29, 2007, discussing Higgingotham v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17918 (7th Cir. July 27, 2007)). What if the confidential informants are not those of the plaintiffs but, ...
A substantial body of law addresses the extent to which a securities fraud complaint may rest on allegations based on the plaintiffs’ confidential informants (see our post of July 29, 2007, discussing Higgingotham v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 2007 U.S. App.…
Continue Reading

$8.5 Million in Sanctions for Willful Disregard of Client Discovery Misbehavior

One of the largest monetary sanctions in U.S. history was imposed on the plaintiff in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 911 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008). Several, but not all, of plaintiffs’ counsel were held to have committed sanctionable acts (or inaction) and referred to the California State Bar for investigation of possible ethical vio ...
One of the largest monetary sanctions in U.S. history was imposed on the plaintiff in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 911 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008). Several, but not all, of plaintiffs’ counsel were held to…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — Dual Citizen Cannot Invoke Alienage Jurisdiction Absent Diversity

The plaintiff in Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 31 (3d Cir. Jan. 3, 2008), held dual citizenship in the U.S. and the British Virgin Islands. Her domicile was in the BVI. She filed a personal injury action against United States citizens domiciled in the Virgin Islands in federal court in the District of the Virgin Islands alleging alienage jurisdic ...
The plaintiff in Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 31 (3d Cir. Jan. 3, 2008), held dual citizenship in the U.S. and the British Virgin Islands. Her domicile was in the BVI. She filed a personal injury action against…
Continue Reading

Motion for Reconsideration — Standards — Sanctions

Chapman v. Journal Concepts, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91621 (D. Haw. Dec. 12, 2007): 1. Standards. “Courts have established only three grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; and (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in l ...
Chapman v. Journal Concepts, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91621 (D. Haw. Dec. 12, 2007): 1. Standards. “Courts have established only three grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously…
Continue Reading

Duty to Reimburse Expert Deposition Expenses under Rule 26(b)(4)(c)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) (as restyled) provides: Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (B). Does the time “spent” by an expert “in resp ...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) (as restyled) provides: Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A)…
Continue Reading

Email / Instant Messages — Authentication

The defendant in United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007), used email and instant messaging to attempt to entice a minor into prohibited activity. Appealing his conviction, he contended that the electronic communications were inadequately authenticated by testimony of an informant and government agent. Rejecting the contention, the Second Circuit st ...
The defendant in United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007), used email and instant messaging to attempt to entice a minor into prohibited activity. Appealing his conviction, he contended that the electronic communications were inadequately authenticated by…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — § 1927 — Questions of First Impression

To be sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, counsel's conduct must multiply the proceedings both ``unreasonably and vexatiously.'' What is “reasonabl[e]” in the context of a question of first impression? A plausible position. Under Lira v Arrow Air, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88751 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2007), § 1927 sanctions are inappropriate for a ...
To be sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, counsel’s conduct must multiply the proceedings both “unreasonably and vexatiously.” What is “reasonabl[e]” in the context of a question of first impression? A plausible position. Under Lira v Arrow Air, Inc., 2007…
Continue Reading

Review and Use of Inadvertently-Produced Privileged Materials — Multiple Disqualifications

Disqualification is contagious. On December 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court upheld disqualification of the attorneys and experts for the plaintiff in RICO v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp, No. S123808, 2007 Cal. LEXIS 13892 (Cal. Dec. 13, 2007) because plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed, used (in deposition) and shared with plaintiffs’ experts a document containing t ...
Disqualification is contagious. On December 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court upheld disqualification of the attorneys and experts for the plaintiff in RICO v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp, No. S123808, 2007 Cal. LEXIS 13892 (Cal. Dec. 13, 2007) because plaintiffs’ counsel…
Continue Reading

Power to Sanction After Notice of Appeal Filed

After a party files a notice of appeal, does the district court retain jurisdiction to sanction? The question is whether the sanctions issue is collateral to the matters on appeal (it usually is). In Briggs v. Briggs, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29712 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2007) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit held that: “Because the issue of whether [counsel ...
After a party files a notice of appeal, does the district court retain jurisdiction to sanction? The question is whether the sanctions issue is collateral to the matters on appeal (it usually is). In Briggs v. Briggs, 2007 U.S. App.…
Continue Reading
Previous474475476477478479480Next

Recent Posts

RICO Person vs. Enterprise: Subsidiary in Typical Corporate Structure Does Not Control Parent And Therefore Does Not Conduct Parent’s Affairs

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal — Abuse of Discretion Review Is “More Exacting” When Judge is “Accuser, Fact Finder and Sentencing Judge All in One” — Client Responsible for Her Lawyer’s Discovery Defalcations — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing When Sanctions Based Entirely on an Established Record — Lesser Sanctions Reasonably Determined to be Ineffective Given Record of Repeated Discovery Abuses

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Fabrication of Evidence and Lying about It to the Court — 2-Part Test for Dismissal Sanction (Eleventh Circuit) — Whether Fraud on Court Was Committed for the Court, Not a Jury

New York Law Firm That Advised Florida Resident for Years Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Florida, Thus Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in Florida — Court Cannot Amend Protective Order Following Dismissal of Case Unless the Order Retains Jurisdiction Post-Dismissal — Parties Can Enforce Stipulated Protective Order Post-Dismissal Through Breach of Contract Action

Rule 37(e)/Spoliation — “Intent to Deprive” Determined under the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard — Court May Make Determination Or Allow Jury to Do So — Lesser “Culpable Conduct” Standard of Residential Funding Continues to Apply in Second Circuit Outside ESI Context — Once Judge Has Definitively Ruled on the Record Denying A Requested Instruction, Counsel Is Not Required to Object to the Charge Again at Trial to Preserve Issue for Appeal

Rule 11 (9011) and Inherent Power Sanctions for “Unapologetic [Refusal to Apologize] Defiance” of Court’s Rules and Orders — Advising Client to Take Steps That Same Judge Had Told Lawyer Were Improper in Prior Case — Obstinate Recidivism — Silence upon Withdrawal of Motion As Rule 11 (9011) Violation (Noted But Not Addressed on Appeal)

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice