(United States DC Circuit) - Held that 14 Holocaust survivors could proceed with their lawsuit against the Republic of Hungary seeking compensation for the seizure and expropriation of their property during the Holocaust. Reversed the district court, which had dismissed their complaint based on principles of international comity and on grounds of forum non conveniens.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the district court should not have sua sponte raised a statute of limitations defense to defeat a terrorism lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had failed to make an appearance in the case. The suit alleged that Iran was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that killed or injured the plaintiffs' family members. Vacated a dismissal.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization, in this lawsuit brought by the estate of an American schoolteacher who was killed in a terrorist attack in the West Bank. Affirmed a dismissal, finding that the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 did not apply here.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that claimants whose family members were harmed in a terrorist attack may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the claimants were not present at the scene of the attack. The case involved District of Columbia tort law and terrorist bombings in East Africa.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the absence of the invalidated extension statute, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation for property taken from Plaintiffs’ ancestors during the Armenian Genocide brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act were barred by the statute of limitations for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded for new trial. The district court: (1) violated a previous decision instructing it not to send Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act claims to trial, (2) abused its discretion by precluding two of defendant’s witnesses from testifying.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff in an action alleging intentional interference with a License Agreement, interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, breach of a confidentiality agreement, and breach of confidence, arising out of defendant Actelion's notice to plaintiff that following its acquisition of defendant CoTherix, defendant Co-Therix's would discontinue development of plaintiff's drug for "business and commercial reasons," is affirmed, where: 1) defendant Actelion, by virtue of its ownership interest, is not automatically immune from tortious interference with the License Agreement; 2) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of wrongful interference with contract and properly charged with considering whether defendants "used unlawful means to interfere with the License Agreement;" and 3) the manager's privilege does not exempt a manager from liability when he or she tortiously interferes with a contract or relationship between third parties.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(PA Supreme Court) - No. 22 WAP 2018 No. 23 WAP 2018

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a health insurance company did not violate the Affordable Care Act's Medical Loss Ratio provision, which requires an insurer to pay a rebate to enrollees if it uses less than 80 percent of the revenue it takes in to pay medical claims. Affirmed a dismissal, in this proposed class action lawsuit brought by health insurance enrollees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to an attorney who stopped working due to intractable migraines. Affirmed the judgment below in this ERISA case.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and reversed a District Court order in the case of the dismissal of a tenured professor. The professor's guilty plea to felony charges relating to the dismissal were serious cause sufficient to support his firing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that the district court correctly instructed the jury to apply a “but for” causation standard, rather than a motivating factor standard; an ADA discrimination plaintiff must show the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for the disability.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued alleging a hostile work environment and retaliatory firing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant. The appeals court found that Plaintiff was discharged during a probationary period and that he lacks evidence to take the matter to a jury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxpayers' suit alleging that a county government imposed a disproportionate tax on commercial and industrial properties in one particular township as opposed to similar types of properties elsewhere in the county. Held that the district court appropriately abstained from hearing this Equal Protection Clause suit under the comity doctrine.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to determine whether attorney work conduct privilege attaches to documents created by an attorney employee during their employment with an employer law firm, the lower court's judgment is vacated where the privilege attaches to the firm, rather than the employee.