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

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. …
Continue Reading

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 LEXIS 6401 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Tremaine Ross, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the imposition of a sanction of attorney's fees under
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 LEXIS 6401 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Tremaine Ross, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the imposition of a sanction of attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil …
Continue Reading

“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.< ...
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. [*4]  Quite…
Continue Reading

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 ...
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…
Continue Reading

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…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

Jae Shin v. Party Well Rest. & Oriental Bakery, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5728 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
Jae Shin v. Party Well Rest. & Oriental Bakery, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5728 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 28, 2024 judgment of…
Continue Reading

“The Meaning Of Language Lies In How An Audience Understands [The] Words” (Good Quote)

Quality Custom Distrib. Servs. LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 710, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5971, *4 (7th Cir. March 14, 2025):  “You do not need to be a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein to know that the meaning of language lies in how an audience understands words. See Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982).” ...
Quality Custom Distrib. Servs. LLC v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 710, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5971, *4 (7th Cir. March 14, 2025):  “You do not need to be a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein to know that the meaning of…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Successful Dershowitz Appeal in Election Case — (1) Ninth Circuit Splits with Sixth Holding (2-1) All Signers of a Court Paper Are Liable for Everything in It, Even If They Can Prove They Had No Role in the Sanctionable Portions (Ed. Ques.: (i) How Did They “Violate[] The Rule” (Rule 11(c)(2))? (ii) Why Does Reasonableness Require Every Lawyer to Read Every Allegation? (iii) Why Can’t They Or Their Clients Allocate Work? (iv) How Are Limited-Role, Innocent Lawyers “Responsible for the Violation” (Rule 11(c)(2))?)) — (2) Goodyear v. Haeger Doesn’t Allow Innocent Lawyers to Prove They Did Not Cause Any Damages (Ed.: Majority Conflates Basis for Seeking Fees with Defense to Fees) — (3) From Concurrence: Duties of Local Counsel (n. 3)

Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6012 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 2”)  (Dershowitz Sanctions Reversal): [Majority] Opinion GOULD, Circuit Judge: "Of counsel" attorney for Plaintiffs, Alan Dershowitz, appea ...
Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6012 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 2”)  (Dershowitz Sanctions Reversal): [Majority] Opinion GOULD, Circuit Judge: “Of counsel” attorney for Plaintiffs, Alan Dershowitz, appeals the district court’s award of sanctions under Federal …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions — Jurisdiction to Sanction Survives Demise of Case — Rule 11 Sanctions Require Both a Baseless Pleading And an Unreasonable Inquiry (The Latter of Which May Be Inferable from the Former) — Amount of Time Available Affects Analysis of What Investigation Is Reasonable — Meaning of “Bad Faith” for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6015 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 1”) (Lead Counsel Sanctions): [Majority] OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: *2 Lead attorneys for the Plaintiff ...
Lake v. Gates, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6015 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Lake 1”) (Lead Counsel Sanctions): [Majority] OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: *2 Lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Andrew D. Parker and Kurt Olsen (collectively, “Lead Attorneys”), appeal…
Continue Reading
Previous2345678Next

Recent Posts

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 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

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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