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

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

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

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a county government's insurers had a duty to defend a civil rights lawsuit relating to the murder convictions of three innocent men who were later exonerated. The county contended that the insurance policies were triggered even though the wrongful acts occurred before the policy period. Affirmed that there was a duty to defend.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(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) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued employer, Defendant, for racial discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied the motion with respect to the retaliation and discrimination claims. Appeals court found no error.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to a County Veterans Assistance Commission was affirmed in a case where their superintendent was banned from the administration building after learning that he'd had a PTSD incident in which he threatened a police officer and kicked out the windows of a squad car.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The court affirmed the dismissal of a suit claiming race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII in the firing of a deputy clerk of a city that was part of a group of layoffs intended to offset a budget shortfall. The plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that her race was the motivating factor in her termination or that there was a causal connection between an EEOC complaint and the termination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising over a former, female firefighter's claims of harassment and discrimination against the City of Petaluma, the trial court's discovery orders are reversed where: 1) outside counsel's pure fact-finding role in the prelitigation investigation constituted legal services in anticipation of litigation and is privileged; and 2) defendant employer did not waive attorney-client privilege by asserting an avoidable consequences defense under the circumstances.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an environmental action, challenging defendant city's finding that a project was exempt from formal environmental review, the trial court's grant of mandatory relief to plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is reversed where: 1) such relief is limited to default, default judgments, and dismissal; and 2) the trial court's grant of judgment to defendant after plaintiff counsel failed to prepare and lodge the administrative record as stipulated does not fall within either category.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a city was entitled to invoice the National Lawyers Guild for certain costs incurred in complying with the Guild’s requests for production of documents under the California Public Records Act, including billing for the time that city employees spent redacting police body camera videos.

(California Court of Appeal) - On rehearing, held that a professional model and actor was not entitled to recover his attorney fees after being awarded damages against an advertiser that used his likeness in an advertising campaign after its right to do so expired. Affirmed the trial court.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(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 DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(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) - In the third chapter of Silicon Valley litigation spanning more than 14 years involving a microchip company and its successor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the judgment entered on plaintiff's cross-complaint against defendant is reversed where the court erred in submitting defendant's statute of limitations defense to the jury, as the cross-complaint was timely filed.

(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 a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a company, alleging that individual members of the company's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control of the corporation in entering into three separate self-dealing transactions, the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; 2) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and 3) plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of the defendant police officer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the remainder of the appeal in a case alleging false arrest and imprisonment because there was evidence the officers had probable cause for the arrest and they are entitled to qualified immunity under New York law.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lawsuit that a bankruptcy trustee brought against officers and directors of the debtor company and others who allegedly participated in a securities fraud scheme, affirmed a jury verdict in part and reversed it in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.