(United States Ninth Circuit) - An El Salvadorian citizen's petition for review of or an order of removal is granted where the petitioner's right to be presented in the proceedings by retained counsel, established under 8 U.S.C. section 1362, was violated when his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an Immigration Judge because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. Further, a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceeding is not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's grant of a county sheriff's department's petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to vacate a hearing officer's decision concerning a terminated correctional officer's request for a Pitchess motion is reversed where: 1) an administrative hearing officer may rule on a Pitchess motion where Pitchess discovery is relevant; and 2) if Pitchess discovery is relevant to an officer's defense in a section 3304(b) hearing, the officer who is subject to discipline must have the opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of the personnel records of other officers and to obtain the records if they are relevant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal challenging preliminary injunction requiring defendants lawyer and law firm to provide notice to certain clients that another lawyer who had been employed by the firm had resigned from the bar with disciplinary charges pending and was not authorized to practice law, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) rules governing attorneys' obligations upon resignation from the Bar apply to law corporations; 2) the resigned attorney expressly agreed to send notices, return property and refund unearned fees; 3) the trial court's finding that defendants aided and abetted the resigned attorney's unauthorized practice of law was amply supported; 4) the City is not trying to regulate the practice of law, but to prevent unlawful business practices; 5) declarations by clients amply support the court's determination that there was a probability the People would succeed on the merits of their claims; and 6) it is not apparent how clients' confidential information would be necessary to defend against the People's claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from denial of petition for writ of mandate that sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California revoking petitioner's dental license, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the penalty was authorized; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking petitioner's dental license following her pleading no contest to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud.

(United States Second Circuit) - The subject attorney, admitted to the bar of this Court, is publicly reprimanded for his misconduct in this Court where: 1) he failed to timely file petitions for review, submitted deficient briefs, failed to file proper forms in eleven cases, and failed to timely file briefs in ten cases; and thus, 2) the Court's Committee on Admissions and Grievances's recommendations and findings of fact, with certain exceptions, are adopted.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's order reciprocally suspending defendant-attorney from the practice of law before that court based on an order of the Connecticut Superior Court, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant received adequate notice of the charges; 2) defendant's other due process challenges to the state court proceedings are either meritless or, at most, concern harmless error; and 3) defendant also has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a "substantial infirmity in the proof" supporting the state court disciplinary order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Following an incident in which plaintiff-deputy allegedly used excessive force, plaintiff was demoted. Judgment of the trial court finding that the hearing officer, who upheld the demotion for use of excessive force, had not exercised independent judgment is reversed, where: 1) under the Memorandum of Understanding, the hearing officer was required to exercise independent judgment not only with respect to whether there were grounds for discipline, but also with respect to the nature of the discipline; and 2) the hearing officer's failure to use independent judgment would not have changed the outcome and was therefore not prejudicial.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action arising out of the retention of policyholder information by former insurance agents for plaintiff, summary judgment dismissing both plaintiff's claims and defendants' counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) the policyholder information was readily available from another source, and thus did not qualify as a trade secret as a matter of law; 2) plaintiff effectively abandoned its breach of fiduciary duty claim on appeal because it failed to challenge the district court's determination that it could not prove damages on that claim; 3) the agents did not qualify as employees covered by ERISA as a matter of law; and 4) the agents pointed to no evidence showing that plaintiff's allegedly unfair trade practices resulted in an ascertainable loss.

(California Court of Appeal) - In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552, dispute arising from requests for Notices of Seizure of Infringing Merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. section 133.21(c), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where court properly held that plaintiff's requests fall within Exemption 4 but erred in finding that 19 C.F.R. section 103 fees had been invalidated.

(United States First Circuit) - In dispute arising from a district court order preliminarily enjoining defendants from misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets by selling computer mouse products similar to or derived from those made by plaintiff, order is affirmed where court properly upheld the validity of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, involving certain ergonomic computer mouse products, district court's judgment is: 1) reversed where the it erred in extending the injunction to defendant's ErgoRoller product because the record does not support the finding that defendant breached the NDA in producing this product; 2) affirmed where it did not err in the duration of the injunction as applied to the other enjoined products; and 3) affirmed where it did not err in jury instructions on lost profits, as but for the breach, plaintiff could have recovered the lost profits by employing another company to manufacture the products and selling them.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its former employee for unauthorized access and misuse of a computer system and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Connecticut laws, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where the foreign defendant's use of a computer in Connecticut satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of both the Connecticut long-arm statute and due process.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a case involves trade secrets relating to opaque polymers, which are hollow spheres used as paint additives for interior and exterior paints to increase the paint's opacity, the International Trade Commission's (ITC) decision, imposing default judgment sanctions for spoliation of evidence and entering a limited exclusion order against plaintiff, is affirmed where the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff's spoliation of evidence and further did not abuse its discretion in entering the limited exclusion order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

Versatile athlete Garry Young may only be 10, but his love of sport has been a lifelong commitment.

WESTERN Sydney Wanderers’ newest recruit - Bruno Piñatares - has arrived from South America with a burning ambition “to win as many titles as possible”.

FINDING the net for the Wanderers fulfilled one of teenage soccer star Ben Morrison’s dreams — but he has higher goals in his sights.

A MARINE Rescue vessel which sank on its maiden voyage on the Central Coast was a potential death trap for its crew and community members, an expert says.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and remand. Plaintiff, a prisoner, brought suit against prison official alleging that they arranged another inmate to attack him and stood by while he was severely injured. District court granted summary judgment with prejudice to Defendant for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appeals court found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but the proper disposition was dismissal without prejudice.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiff contended that Defendant was strictly liable for an alleged automobile defect that caused injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant stating that Plaintiff had failed to establish Defendant acquired successor liability for the alleged defect.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action on behalf of their 13-year-old son who was struck and killed by a school bus. The jury found that Plaintiff’s son was 80 percent responsible for the accident and awarded $250,000 in damages. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial. The appeals court held that Plaintiffs had not made a cognizable argument as to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and found no merit in Plaintiff’s claims. Affirmed judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment for nonsuit. Plaintiff, a juvenile, sued Department of Children and Family Services for sexual abuse while she was in foster care. Trial court granted nonsuit because Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from criminal actions of third parties. Appeals court affirmed, but modified cost award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed immunity, reversed attorney fees. Plaintiff sued Defendant on a premises liability claim. The trial court found that governmental immunity applied and awarded judgment to Defendant along with attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038. The appeals court held that government immunity did apply, but reversed the award of attorney fees because there was a real question of whether government immunity was applicable or not such that Plaintiff’s lawsuit had a reasonable cause which defeated the attorney fee award.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived Palestinian nationals' claims that pro-Israeli Americans engaged in a civil conspiracy to expel all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by funneling millions of dollars to Jewish settlements there. The defendants contended that the case raised nonjusticiable political questions and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Disagreeing, the D.C. Circuit reversed a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(United States First Circuit) - In this shareholder derivate suit, plaintiff Sarnacki asserts Nevada state-law claim against Smith & Wesson's officers and directors, including breach of fiduciary duties, wastes of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. In reaction to earlier and parallel cases, Smith & Wesson's Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate and determine the viability of any of these claims and to make a recommendation to the Board whether to pursue any of these claims. The SLC recommended against filing any claims. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary dismissal on the basis of the SLC recommendation, and after limited discovery. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the Board has met its burden as to proving the independence of the SLC; 2) the SLC's investigation was reasonable and in good faith; and 3) the district court's decision to limit discovery was not an abuse of the court's discretion, as it was adequate to aid its review.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's order reversing the bankruptcy order that would have let a committee of unsecured creditors could recover fraudulently transferred funds solely from a corporate cheat because the appellate court agreed with the district court that the committee could also recover funds from the parties to whom the cheat made payments from the corporate account because the 'good guys' involved in these dealings were still in a better position than unsuspecting creditors to guard against corporate fraud.

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

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(NY Supreme Court) - 528980

(NY Supreme Court) - 528503

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456