(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit brought by several employees of a hospice care provider alleging that their employer had billed Medicare improperly. Reversed the dismissal of their claims under the False Claims Act.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a property owner's negligence, breach of contract, and other claims arising out of a building construction dispute.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Secretary of Labor has authority under the OSHA statute to issue a citation to a general contractor at a multi-employer construction worksite who controls a hazardous condition at that worksite, even if the condition affects another employer's employees. Criticized a circuit precedent, Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981), which had held that the Act protects only an employer's employees.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that mediation costs fall within the category of costs that may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed an award to the prevailing party in this construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a citizen group could not proceed with its claims that the City of Los Angeles engaged in a pattern and practice of illegally exempting certain development projects in Venice from permitting requirements contained in the California Coastal Act and the Venice Land Use Plan. Affirmed summary judgment for city.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighboring business was time-barred from challenging a city's approval of an affordable housing project. Affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles could deny landowners' request for approval to undertake a large amount of grading on their parcel of land. Affirmed the denial of the landowners' request for writ relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit brought by several employees of a hospice care provider alleging that their employer had billed Medicare improperly. Reversed the dismissal of their claims under the False Claims Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

No, you did not request a changelog and yes you will get malware if you click on the link!

Your Verizon Wireless bill from the IRS. Wow, they must be serious about collecting the outstanding amount, because they called fridaysug85 to do the collection!

This phishing scammer decided to skip the normal mumbo jumbo and just send the phishing link.

Poorly formatted, fake UPS Shipping service report, including malware.

Royal Mail Shipment scam with a ZBot Trojan attached to it.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

A fake Facebook message, taking you to some online pharmacy site.

Rosa Daniel wants you to come to Rome to pick up a high priority package.

Malware delivered via a link in a fake DHL Notification e-mail.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

IRMGF (Inspiration Mining Corporation) pump and dump stock spam

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that adjoining landowners were not entitled to injunctive relief against a company whose manufacturing plant had polluted the groundwater, in an action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for injunctive relief, because state environmental regulators had already sued the company and the two were working together on remedial steps. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a town could not enforce a hazardous substances ordinance against a railroad company that was building a road salt transloading facility. The ordinance was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. Affirmed a permanent injunction against the town.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Invalidated portions of an Environment Protection Agency final rule regarding waste streams from steam-electric power plants. Remanded to the agency for reconsideration in regard to legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate, in this challenge brought by environmentalists, utilities and others.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition denied. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry was permitted because the agency's interpretation of "risk" received deference and their decision not to regulate was authorized.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.