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: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Baskin v. EC Paia LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024): ORDER Defendant-Appellant's motion for attorneys' fees, including the request to assess fees as damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of A ...
Baskin v. EC Paia LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024): ORDER Defendant-Appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees, including the request to assess fees as damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for…
Continue Reading

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024):* *Circuit Judge Kanne, a member of the panel, died after the appeals were argued. They are being decided by a quorum.
Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024):* *Circuit Judge Kanne, a member of the panel, died after the appeals were argued. They are being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) Six suits, filed under the…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Froemming v. City of W. Allis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1817 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER William Froemming sued the City of West Allis, Wisconsin, its police chief, and three police officers raising several c ...
Froemming v. City of W. Allis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1817 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER William Froemming sued the City of West Allis, Wisconsin, its police chief, and three police officers raising several constitutional claims under 42 …
Continue Reading

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

In re Rudder, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484 (5th Cir. April 30, 2024) (per curiam): Per Curiam: Pro se Appellant Levi Rudder challenges the district court's imposition of sanctions on him for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in a ...
In re Rudder, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484 (5th Cir. April 30, 2024) (per curiam): Per Curiam: Pro se Appellant Levi Rudder challenges the district court’s imposition of sanctions on him for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in…
Continue Reading

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10637 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024): A limited liability company named Oxford Mall fought J.C. Penney in federal court for over two years. Just when it was poised to lose the cas ...
J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10637 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024): A limited liability company named Oxford Mall fought J.C. Penney in federal court for over two years. Just when it was poised …
Continue Reading

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

United States v. Perry, 92 F.4th 500 (4th Cir. 2024): Adonis Perry was arrested in 2017 for possessing a firearm as a felon and for possessing marijuana after he was found with both during a traffic stop. While awaiting t ...
United States v. Perry, 92 F.4th 500 (4th Cir. 2024): Adonis Perry was arrested in 2017 for possessing a firearm as a felon and for possessing marijuana after he was found with both during a traffic stop. While awaiting trial,…
Continue Reading

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

Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92 F.4th 266 (5th Cir. 2024): This is the third appeal from a sanctions order entered under
Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92 F.4th 266 (5th Cir. 2024): This is the third appeal from a sanctions order entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). The Appellant for this appeal is the Plaintiff’s attorney. …
Continue Reading

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

Derek Smith L. Grp., PLLC v. E. Side Club, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9908 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2024): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Derek Smith L. Grp., PLLC v. E. Side Club, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9908 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2024): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.…
Continue Reading

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

Murtagh v. Cohen (In re Baker), 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9922 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM*
Murtagh v. Cohen (In re Baker), 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9922 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3…
Continue Reading

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

Bowden v. Genie Indus. A Terex Brand Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9924 (9th Cir. April 24, 2024) (unpublished): Genie Industries, Inc., (Genie) appeals from the district court's judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Mark Bowden in this prod ...
Bowden v. Genie Indus. A Terex Brand Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9924 (9th Cir. April 24, 2024) (unpublished): Genie Industries, Inc., (Genie) appeals from the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Mark Bowden in this…
Continue Reading
Previous567891011Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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