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: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6961, *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kim Hartigan, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal district court against Hernand ...
Hartigan v. Hernando Cnty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6961, *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kim Hartigan, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal district court against Hernando County, Florida; the County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025): *1 This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the di ...
Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025): *1 This patent case is before us following remand proceedings in the district court. The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. We affirm the district…
Continue Reading

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

It is easy to be critical of Paul Weiss’s deal with the Trump Administration.  But moral grandstanding aside, the Firm did the right thing.  Clients invest months and years, and large sums of money, in their law firms.  Clients lose all of that when the firm cannot act, or act effectively, for them.  Yes, there is a financial side to the deal.  There is also a self-preservation aspect.  ...
It is easy to be critical of Paul Weiss’s deal with the Trump Administration.  But moral grandstanding aside, the Firm did the right thing.  Clients invest months and years, and large sums of money, in their law firms.  Clients lose…
Continue Reading

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

Mula v. Mula, 2025 WL 869208 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Mula Jr. (“Mula”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against remaining Defendant-Appellees Alan Mula, Terry Wallace Campbell, Kristofer Biorn (“Biorn”), and the law ...
Mula v. Mula, 2025 WL 869208 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Mula Jr. (“Mula”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against remaining Defendant-Appellees Alan Mula, Terry Wallace Campbell, Kristofer Biorn (“Biorn”), and…
Continue Reading

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
1234Next

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

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

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

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

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

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