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

Rule 11 Sanctions for Complaint — Two-Pronged Inquiry: (a) Whether Complaint Is Objectively Frivolous and (b) Whether Attorney Conducted A Reasonable Inquiry; (2) Relevant Factors Include Access To Information, Experience Of Attorney Versus The Level Of Specialized Expertise Necessary, Whether The Allegations Are Related To Knowledge, Purpose, Or Intent, The Relation Of Allegedly Frivolous Claim To The Pleading As A Whole, Length Of Time The Attorney Had To Investigate, And The Complexity Of The Case

Persian Gulf, Inc. v. Alon United States Energy, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34169 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, ...
Persian Gulf, Inc. v. Alon United States Energy, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34169 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated cases, Defendant-Appellant Alon USA Energy, Inc. (Alon) appeals the district court’s denial of its…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions — Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) —Adverse Inference — Fifth Circuit Equates “Intent to Deprive Another Party of the Information’s Use in the Litigation” with Its Traditional Test of “‘Bad Faith’ or ‘Bad Conduct’”

Ford v. Anderson Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 506 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024) Per Curiam: On June 15, 2018, pretrial detainee Rhonda Newsome died in Anderson County Jail due to complications [*2] 
Ford v. Anderson Cnty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 506 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024) Per Curiam: On June 15, 2018, pretrial detainee Rhonda Newsome died in Anderson County Jail due to complications [*2]  from Addison’s disease. Newsome’s family members filed…
Continue Reading

Criminal Spoliation — Eleventh Circuit Has Never Ruled That A Spoliation Instruction Should Be Given in a Criminal Case, But Holds That Bad Faith Would Be Required Were It Ever To So Rule — Also Surveying Other Circuits’ Law on Criminal Spoliation

United States v. Fey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34456 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2023): Criminal Spoliation — Eleventh Circuit Has Never Ruled That A Spoliation Instruction Should Be Given in a Criminal Case, But Hol ...
United States v. Fey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34456 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2023): Criminal Spoliation — Eleventh Circuit Has Never Ruled That A Spoliation Instruction Should Be Given in a Criminal Case, But Holds That Bad Faith Would Be …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(d) and 41(b) Dismissal Sanction: (1) Sixth Circuit Factors (Bad Faith/Fault, Prejudice, Warning, Lesser Sanctions Considered); (2) Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Excuses District Court’s Failure to Warn Litigant That Case Could Be Dismissed (Here, Opposing Counsel Had So Warned in Writing); (3) While Lesser Sanctions Should Be Considered, District Court May Dismiss As First And Only Sanction; (4) Type of Misconduct Justifying Dismissal with Prejudice

Moore v. Erickson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26639 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER *1 In this
Moore v. Erickson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26639 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER *1 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Anthony Lamont Moore, a former Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment imposing costs…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions: Sixth Circuit Standards — Using Residential Funding Framework For Electronic Spoliation — Call to Ethics Hotline Absent Threat of Litigation or Preservation Demand Insufficient to Trigger Duty to Preserve

Goodale v. Elavon, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32861 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER Elizabeth Ann Goodale, proceeding through counsel, appeals the district court's judgment in favor of Elavon, Inc., on her employment-disc ...
Goodale v. Elavon, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32861 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER Elizabeth Ann Goodale, proceeding through counsel, appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Elavon, Inc., on her employment-discrimination claims. The parties have waived…
Continue Reading

Disqualification: Lawyers Who Initially Represented A Group of Plaintiffs But Ended Up Representing Only 2 Of Them Because the Group Couldn’t Agree on a Remedy Were Not Subject to Disqualification by Former Clients Because \ Disagreement as to Remedy Was Not Materially Adverse to the Former Clients

Whitest v. Crisp Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32934 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: [*2]  On June 14, 2017, Crandall Postell and numerous co-plaintiffs, represented by Bryan L. Sells and ACLU ...
Whitest v. Crisp Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32934 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: [*2]  On June 14, 2017, Crandall Postell and numerous co-plaintiffs, represented by Bryan L. Sells and ACLU-affiliated attorneys, filed a lawsuit…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Party That Frustrates Arbitration by Failing to Comply with Designated Arbitral Forum’s Policies Is Subject to Suit in Court

Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33600 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023): This is an odd case. The lead defendant here, Wyndham Vacation Resorts—which, to distinguish it from other Wyndham-related entities, we'll ju ...
Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33600 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023): This is an odd case. The lead defendant here, Wyndham Vacation Resorts—which, to distinguish it from other Wyndham-related entities, we’ll just call “Resorts”—entered into …
Continue Reading

(1) Rule 37 Sanctions: Court’s Discretion Narrows As the Severity of the Sanction Increases; (2) Party Does Not Waive Personal Jurisdiction Defense by Moving to Set Aside Default

Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China Nat'l Materials Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33531 (8th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023) Appellant Hawkeye Gold, LLC, an Iowa-based seller of livestock feed, brought this action ...
Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China Nat’l Materials Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33531 (8th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023) Appellant Hawkeye Gold, LLC, an Iowa-based seller of livestock feed, brought this action against China National Materials Industry…
Continue Reading

Good Cause Requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) to Modify Scheduling Order Applies to Deadlines in District Judge’s Individual Rules and Practices — Here, Untimely Challenge to Expert Testimony

Tr. for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC v. Rar Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33544 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2023): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGE ...
Tr. for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC v. Rar Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd.. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33544 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2023): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions/Due Process/Vexatious Litigant Injunction: (1) Pro Se Status Relevant to Considering Whether Due Process Issue Waived Due to Failure to Assert; (2) Party Has a Right to Notice That a Vexatious Litigant Injunction Is Under Consideration and an Opportunity to Be Heard; (3) Prior Warnings of Frivolousness from Other Courts Does Not Afford Notice That Party Is at Risk of Sanction in Present Court (i.e., Distinguishing Notice of Frivolousness from Due Process Notice of Risk of Sanction)

Allen v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33380 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2023)   Per Curiam. *1 Derrick Allen filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Clerk’s Office in the ...
Allen v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33380 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2023)   Per Curiam. *1 Derrick Allen filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Clerk’s Office in the United States District…
Continue Reading
Previous3456789Next

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

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

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