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

(1) Party May Simultaneously Claim Privilege And Dispute Document’s Authenticity; (2) No Per Se Waiver Rule When Privilege Log Is Not Produced; (3) Fact Opponent Actually Possesses Challenged Documents Significantly Affects Log Analysis; (4) Inherent Power Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Factors

Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30921 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (unpublished):  MEMORANDUM* In 2010, Defendant-Appellee Cristiano Ronaldo ("Ronaldo") ...
Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30921 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (unpublished):  MEMORANDUM* In 2010, Defendant-Appellee Cristiano Ronaldo (“Ronaldo”) settled a sexual assault claim made against him by Plaintiff-Appellant Kathryn Mayorga (“Mayorga”). The matter lay dormant until…
Continue Reading

Appeals: “When A District Court Lists Several Reasons For Taking A Certain Action, And One Of The Reasons Is Flawed, The District Court’s Decision Should Still Be Upheld If Other Reasons Support The Ruling” (Good Quote)

Baker v. Meiling, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):   MEMORANDUM* Appellants—a [*3]  proposed ...
Baker v. Meiling, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):   MEMORANDUM* Appellants—a [*3]  proposed class of elderly investors in a metal-coatings company—appeal from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to Appellees and sanctioning…
Continue Reading

(1) Diversity Jurisdiction: Allegations of Residency May Be Corrected by Letter to Establish Citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1653; (2) Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Excluding Expert Report — Fifth Circuit Factors; (3) Rule of Orderliness: One Panel May Not Overturn Another’s Decision Absent Intervening Change in Law; (4) Modest Prejudice from Late Expert Disclosure Sufficient to Sustain Exclusion; (5) Defaulting Party’s Refusal to Consent to Adjournment of Expert Deadlines Properly Considered in Exclusion Analysis; (6) Good Quote: “Because Of A Trial Court’s Need To Control Its Docket, A Party’s Violation Of The Court’s Scheduling Order Should Not Routinely Justify A Continuance”

Stewart v. Gruber, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33127 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Plaintiffs1 a ...
Stewart v. Gruber, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33127 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished) Per Curiam:* Plaintiffs1 appeal from two interrelated district court orders: (1) the exclusion of their expert’s reports and testimony, [*2]  and (2) the grant…
Continue Reading

Rule 37/Contempt/Dismissal Discovery Sanctions: (1) Magistrate Judge Must Refer Contempt Charges to District Court Except When Exercising Consent Jurisdiction; (2) Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault; (3) Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit); (4) Fees And Expenses For Entire Deposition OK Where Party So Obstructed Deposition As To Render It Entirely Useless Because Case Dismissed — District Judge Not Required to Further Apportion Fees and Expenses for Obstructed Part

Xingfei Luo v. Paul Wang, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32882 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Xingfei Luo v. Paul Wang, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32882 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge *1 Xingfei Luo brought this action against Paul Wang asserting various defamation-related claims. After a magistrate …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 & The PSLRA: (1) Sanctions Order Is Not Appealable Until The Award Amount of the Award (The Relief) Is Finalized; (2) Issue Abandoned on Appeal by Failing to Provide Supporting Arguments Explaining Error; (3) Rule 11 Sanctions Under PSLRA Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion; (4) PSLRA Requires District Court to Make Findings As to Each Party’s and Each Attorney’s Compliance with Rule 11(b); (5) PSLRA Mandates Presumptive Award of Attorney’s Fees If Complaint Fails to Comply with Rule 11(b); (6) Presumption Rebutted by Proof the Award (a) Would Impose Unreasonable Burden on Plaintiff, (b) Would Be Unjust; (c) If Not Entered, Would Not Impose A Greater Burden on the Aggrieved Party; or (d) The Violation of Rule 11(b) Was De Minimis; (7) Even If Presumption Rebutted, Court Must Award Other Appropriate Sanctions

Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32938 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Scott Meide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's orders imposing sanctions under the
Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32938 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Scott Meide, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s orders imposing sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Under FRAP 38, Counsel Alone May Be Sanctioned for a Frivolous Appeal — Knowledge of Frivolousness Properly Imputed from Prior Cases Handled by Counsel — $5,000 Financial Sanction Ordered Paid to Opponent (No Discussion of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017))

Uyanik v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31642 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* Appellant Ali Uyanik appeals1 fro ...
Uyanik v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31642 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* Appellant Ali Uyanik appeals1 from the district court’s order dismissing his First Amended Complaint against Appellee Wawanesa General Insurance Company…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions: (1) Party Is Entitled to Notice of the Sanctions Power Under Consideration, Reasons Sanctions Are Being Considered, and the Form of Potential Sanctions; (2) Nonetheless, Sanctions Will Be Upheld Absent Explicit Notice of the Precise Legal Authority Relied On Where The Record Shows There Was Notice of The Sanctionable Conduct and The Factors The Court Would Consider — Here, Effectively Notice of the Precise Power under Consideration; (3) Attendance at CLE Courses Is A Permissible Sanction

Med. Tech. Assocs. II Inc. v. Rausch, 2023 WL 8451222 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished) OPINION* Jonathan G. Graves appeals the District Court’s orders imposing sanctions against him. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders. I Graves represented Plaintiff Medical Tec ...
Med. Tech. Assocs. II Inc. v. Rausch, 2023 WL 8451222 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished) OPINION* Jonathan G. Graves appeals the District Court’s orders imposing sanctions against him. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s…
Continue Reading

(1) Judicial Estoppel — Third Circuit Factors — Bad Faith Required; (2) To Prove Bad Faith, Must Show (i) Culpable Behavior (ii) That Assaults The Dignity Or Authority Of The Court; (3) Earlier Inconsistent Position Must Have Been Accepted by the Court Because, Unlike Equitable Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel Focuses on the Court, Not the Opposing Party (Rare Exception to Success Requirement in Bankruptcy Context); (4) Generally, Defendants Have Flexibility in Asserting Positions in Early Stages of Litigation; (5) Judicial Estoppel (Like Inherent Power Sanctions)Appropriate Only If Sanctions Rules And Statutes Inadequate; (6) Good Quote: “The District Court Sought to Force a Square Peg into a Round Hole”

Pace-O-Matic, Inc. v. Eckert, Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30086 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION** Eckert Sea ...
Pace-O-Matic, Inc. v. Eckert, Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30086 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION** Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC (“Eckert”), Hawke McKeon & Sniscak, LLP (“HMS”), and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Appealability: (1) Viability of Perlman Doctrine (Allowing Non-Party to Appeal Discovery Order) Is Unclear After Mohawk, But Party-Sought Review of Privilege Ruling Is Clearly Not Permitted; (2) Opinion Work Product Enjoys Nearly Absolute Immunity But Is Subject to Crime-Fraud Exception; (3) Crime Fraud Factors (4th Cir.): (i) Client Was Engaged In Or Planning Crime When Seeking Counsel, and (ii) The Privileged Materials Bear A Close Relationship to The Scheme; (4) Burden of Proof Less Than Preponderance — Simply Must Subject Opposing Party to Risk of Non-Persuasion If Unrebutted; (5) Client Waives Privilege By Testifying for Lawyer in Bar Proceedings; (6) Once Case Settled, Client’s Interest in Work Product Protection Is Not A Compelling Reason to Deny Discovery; (7) Good Quote: “Certainly, A District Court Does Not Clearly Err When Relying On Sworn Statements Over Negotiation-Driven Puffery”

Under Seal 1 v. United States (In re Subpoenas.), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31137 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023): Opinion Appellant John Doe is a medical malpractice attorney. While representing a client, Jane Roe, he engaged in settle ...
Under Seal 1 v. United States (In re Subpoenas.), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31137 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2023): Opinion Appellant John Doe is a medical malpractice attorney. While representing a client, Jane Roe, he engaged in settlement negotiations with…
Continue Reading

Legislative Privilege Waived by State House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader When They Intervened in Case Challenging Voting Laws And Putting Their Movtives At Issue

Petersen v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz. (In re Toma), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31250 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2023): MEMORANDUM* Petitioners Ben Toma and Warren Petersen (collectively, ...
Petersen v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz. (In re Toma), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31250 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2023): MEMORANDUM* Petitioners Ben Toma and Warren Petersen (collectively, Petitioners) intervened as defendants in an action…
Continue Reading
Previous45678910Next

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