(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The court concluded the 44 articles at issue were not works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. District Court’s summary judgement in favor of RIT and denying the motion for partial summary judgement by the Estate reversed. Remanded for further proceedings.

DAYYAN Neve will look to repeat the dose when he competes in the fourth event of the Bacardi Surf Tour this Sunday at Dee Why Beach.

MANLY United FC will host fixtures next season on Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons in a bid to attract bigger crowds.

(UT Court of Appeals) - No. 20180488-CA

(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 a law firm's suit to enforce a fee-splitting agreement against another law firm, arising from an underlying class action, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant-law firm is reversed where an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevent another lawyer from complying with the rules' mandates.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment dismissing plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings claim against government when his license to practice law was revoked by the Tenth Circuit and reciprocally by the State of Colorado, is affirmed, where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction over plaintiff's alleged violations of his rights in the absence of a money-mandating statute providing for compensation for such government action as required for a claim under the Tucker Act; and 2) because the revocation actions became final no later than 1999, the suit was barred by the six year statute of limitations of the Tucker Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment denying plaintiff's motion to execute a monetary judgment entered, as a sanction for plaintiff's attorney misconduct, is vacated and remanded, where although the district court had more than an adequate basis to sanction plaintiff's counsel and accorded the required procedural safeguards, further findings are needed to support a sanction that falls entirely on the clients rather than principally on the lawyer.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment of the Committee on Grievances suspending petitioner-attorney from practicing law in the Southern District of New York for a period of seven years is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the committee's conclusion that petitioner violation the New York Code of Professional Responsibility; 2) the Committee acted well within its informed discretion in ordering a seven-year suspension, notwithstanding the lack of directly analogous precedent, based on its conclusion that petitioner's conduct was sui generis.

(United States Second Circuit) - The order of the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, directing that the subject attorney's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in its court is affirmed, where: 1) the record supports a determination that the attorney knowingly withdrew client funds without permission or authority and used said funds for his own personal purposes; and 2) disbarment was within the range of appropriate punishments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment denying plaintiff-student's petition for writ of mandate to overturn a two-quarter suspension from the University of California San Diego for hitting another student in the head is affirmed, where the University's Student Conduct Code authorized either the student conduct officer responsible for his case or the Council of Deans of Student Affairs to impose suspension as a sanction when the student conduct review board did not recommend suspension.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, in an underlying federal action, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved for sanctions against appellant Dunn. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part. Respondent Committee of Professional Standards thereafter filed a petition alleging that Dunn had "engaged in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer" in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The basis of the complaint was essentially the text of the Magistrate's sanctions opinion. Judgment of the Appellate Division finding Dunn guilty of the charged misconduct and finding that collateral estoppel applied to the Magistrate's sanctions order is reversed and the matter is remitted, where: 1) while the issue of whether Dunn had made false statements in her written declaration, it was not the focus of the hearing on the underlying motion for sanctions; and 2) the cursory nature of the sanctions proceedings itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, plaintiff was arrested by defendant police officers for an alleged assault on his father-in-law. After plaintiff's arrest, his wife met with one of the police officers and gave him drugs which she purported to have found in plaintiff's car. Soon thereafter, the police officer and plaintiff's wife began a sexual relationship, and plaintiff was charged with assault, elder abuse, and two counts of drug possession. The drug charges were eventually dismissed for lack of probable cause, and a jury acquitted plaintiff the remaining charges, and after conducting an internal investigation, the City of Glendale terminate the police officer for conduct unbecoming of an officer. Summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed, where: 1) notwithstanding plaintiff's self-defense claim, there was probable cause to arrest and prosecute plaintiff for assault and elder abuse; 2) because the police officer's relationship with plaintiff's wife began after all of the evidence related to the altercation had been collected and documented, the officer's later misconduct did not undermine the existence of probable cause; and 3) plaintiff failed to demonstrate a Fourth Amendment seizure with respect to the drug possession charges.

(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 an action alleging that the government misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets, the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the district court’s judgment for plaintiff and remanding the case for transfer of the case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1631, is affirmed, where: 1) the Fifth Circuit ruling that the case must be transferred to the Claims Court is law of the case; and 2) the Claims Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit because although plaintiff brought the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which now must give way, plaintiff is within the class of those authorized to recover upon proof of breach of contract, injury, and amount of damages, as well as a Fifth Amendment taking.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In suit to correct inventorship of the "Tuschl Patents," the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in ruling that this is not a dispute between States falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; 2) plaintiff was free to choose between filing this suit in the Supreme Court and filing in federal district court; and 3) the University of Massachusetts is not an indispensable party.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Ruling of the International Trade Commission that respondent-intervenor uPI violated the Consent Order as to the imports known as "formerly accused products" is affirmed, the modified penalty is affirmed, and the ruling of no violation as to the post-Consent Order products is reversed, where: 1) substantial evidence does not support the Commission's conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently developed; and 2) the United States sale or importation of downstream products, which incorporate uPI's formerly accused upstream products and infringe the '190 patent, constitutes a violation of the Consent Order's knowingly aiding or abetting provision.

They call it Sydney’s Little Portugal, but football fans in Petersham this morning are making a big noise after their team won the UEFA 2016 Cup in France.

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

Eleven-year-old Max Fricker is following in the footsteps of his big brother Sam, and making a name for himself as a diver with a real future.

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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the doctrine of laches barred a woman from seeking to recover a painting by Pablo Picasso hanging in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting once belonged to her ancestors, German Jews who fled the Nazi regime. Affirmed a dismissal based on undue delay in bringing the lawsuit.

(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 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) - Reversed and remanded for new trial. Plaintiff was injured when she swerved and crashed to avoid a flying mattress. The jury found for the Defendant. The appeals court found that that the jury was given incorrect jury instructions on negligence per se and reversed the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court granted City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued City for injuries from tripping and falling over a defective sidewalk. The trial court ruled that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff is an indigent, self-represented prison inmate pursuing a medical malpractice claim. The trial count denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The appeals court directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings on Plaintiff’s right of access to the courts and right to appointment of counsel and to vacate the order granting the motion for summary judgment.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(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) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.