LONDON (AP) - From resounding applause to ostracization and isolation. That's essentially the journey Lt. Cmdr. Robert Embleton, who served 34 years in Britain's Royal Navy...

Data released from the California Departments of Health and Social Services on Friday show that nursing home deaths represent almost half of the coronavirus fatalities in the state.

A 77-year-old Michigan barber said he won't stop working "unless he is tasered by the police or Jesus Christ himself walks in" and will continue defying Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's executive orders.

Jeff Haste, Pennsylvania's Dauphin County Board chairman, slammed Gov. Tom Wolf (D) in a letter on Friday for keeping a bulk of businesses closed, particularly in his county, and bluntly called on Wolf to “return our state to the people (as prescribed by our Constitution) and not run it as a dictatorship.”

Physician and Rep. Gregory Murphy said on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily that “draconian” lockdowns are no longer needed in many places.

"The Democrats are cowering at home right now. And it makes no sense because we've learned so much," Rep. Devin Nunes said.

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. adults say China bears responsibility for American coronavirus deaths, a Morning Consult tracker poll released Friday revealed.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a company in the business of selling internet domain names and operates the popular .com and .net top-level domains, alleging its competitor made a series of statements touting the popularity of the .xyz domain and warning of a scarcity of desirable .com domain names which violated the Lanham Act's false advertising provisions, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) as to defendant's self-promoting statements, most of which concern its registration numbers, plaintiff failed to produce the required evidence that it suffered an actual injury as a direct result of defendant’s conduct; and 2) plaintiff did not establish that defendant's statements about the availability of suitable .com domain names were false or misleading statements of fact, as required for Lanham Act liability.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal concerning the Government's ability to compel the decryption of digital devices when the Government seizes those devices pursuant to a valid search warrant, the district court's order, finding John Doe in civil contempt for refusing to comply with an order issued pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651, which required him to produce several seized devices in a fully unencrypted state, is affirmed over Doe's claims that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order and that the order itself violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action, construing the term 'pivot table' in relation to two of plaintiff's patents, the district court's 1) claim construction is affirmed as supported by intrinsic evidence; but its 2) indefiniteness determination is reversed because the claims' scopes are reasonably certain.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action relating to a series of patents concerning a system for streaming audio/visual data over a communications system like the internet, the district court's judgment that the asserted patents are ineligible subject matter under 25 U.S.C. section 101 is affirmed where the claims are directed at abstract ideas and contain no additional elements transforming them into patent-eligible applications.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment for the defendant website in a suit claiming it misled users who paid thousands of dollars to reserve a vacation rental property in Belize that apparently didn't exist because they determined that the use of the word guarantee is not a warranty or representation and there was no implication that the website investigated its listings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Declaring a writ of certiorari petition moot in the case of Microsoft's attempt to avoid providing emails pursuant to a Government warrant investigating the drug trade because a new warrant was issued under a new law that, unlike the old version, permitted the Government to demand emails stored on overseas datacenters under Trump's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld a beach town's ordinance imposing restrictions on companies, such as Airbnb Inc., that host online platforms for short-term vacation rentals. The internet companies claimed that the ordinance impermissibly infringed their First Amendment rights or was preempted by federal law. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their lawsuit seeking to enjoin the ordinance.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a citizen's claim that a sheriff's office Facebook page unconstitutionally censored speech. She claimed that her controversial comments were deleted and she was banned from the site, in violation of her First Amendment rights. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment, but remanded for sentencing on certain counts. Defendant convicted of 60 sex offenses, including human trafficking, contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, and sending harmful matter to a minor. Defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions. Appeals court held that six of Defendant’s convictions must be reduced to sending harmful material to a minor.

The French Composer Of EDM Known Internationally As DP Has Released His Latest LP Record, “House Vol. 1”

Tickets On Sale For New London-based Music Conference At Southbank Centre’s Purcell Room On September 24

ASM Completes Its 150th Film Score And Retains Jonathan Firstenberg As North American Rep

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of class certification in an action where a healthcare company was accused of unlawfully sending unsolicited faxed advertisements in violation of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The district court denied the motion for class certification on the ground that individual issues would predominate over issues common to the putative class. On an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the denial of class certification in a case involving tax refund claims filed by limited liability companies (LLCs) which sought refunds of a levy they had paid pursuant to a California tax statute that was later determined to be unconstitutional. When the district court denied the LLCs' motion for class certification on multiple grounds including predominance and superiority, they appealed. Agreeing with the LLCs that this case was suitable for treatment on a classwide basis, the First Appellate District reversed and remanded for certification of a class or classes consistent with its opinion.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated the certification of a consumer class action alleging that Johnson & Johnson deceptively labeled several of its baby bath products as being natural when they were not. The district court had certified a class consisting of consumers who purchased the products in eighteen states. On appeal, the Second Circuit was not convinced that the district court had carefully considered the material differences in the state laws at issue before concluding that their similarities predominated over their differences, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the amount in controversy in an employee class action was too low for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). An employer that had been sued for allegedly violating wage-hour laws, and that removed the case to federal court under CAFA, argued that the district court erred in remanding the case to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the employer that, in assessing the amount in controversy, the district court should have included future attorney fees recoverable by statute or contract. The panel therefore reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the district court erred in remanding a class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act's local-controversy exception. The plaintiff argued that her wage-hour class action against a fast-food chain belonged in state court because more than two-thirds of the putative class members were California citizens. Unconvinced, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for additional discovery regarding how many former employees had moved to other states, among other things.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in an action alleging wage and hour violations, finding substantial evidence that individual questions would predominate and also that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated an award of attorney fees but otherwise affirmed the district court's approval of a class action settlement resolving claims that an online retailer enrolled consumers in a membership rewards program without their consent and mishandled their billing information. Held that the district court should not have counted the full face value of $20 coupons provided to class members when it performed the percentage-of-recovery and lodestar calculations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reversed the denial of class certification in a wage-hour lawsuit brought by registered nurses against a hospital.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in two lawsuits that were brought by unwilling recipients of faxed advertising messages. The recipients alleged that the fax advertisements violated the FCC's Solicited Fax Rule. Found no abuse of discretion in denying class certification in both cases, which were consolidated for appeal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Golden Gate Bridge toll-collecting system belonged in state court. Affirmed the remand of the case to state court after it was removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. The suit principally alleged unlawful collection of personal data.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour case involving property inspectors in the insurance industry. The inspectors proposed to establish liability and damages using a method of anonymously surveying class members, but the trial court found flaws with the plan, and its decision to deny class certification was upheld on appeal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a state law fraud lawsuit against an investment adviser was precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The statute's definition of a "covered class action" includes any class action brought by a named plaintiff on a representative basis, regardless of the proposed class size. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the district court "appears to have erred" in ordering that thousands of current and former employees be notified of a pending Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, because most of them had signed binding arbitration agreements and would be unable to join the action. However, the district court's apparent error in directing the notice did not justify granting the employer's petition for mandamus relief -- but the district court was advised to reconsider its ruling.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal rule governing appeals from orders granting or denying class certification is not subject to equitable tolling. The plaintiff contended that his failure to comply with the 14-day limit specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) should be tolled, because he had acted reasonably in the particular circumstances here. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the time limit for appealing class certification rulings cannot be equitably tolled. Justice Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion.

(United States Second Circuit) - Rejected an objecting class member's challenge to the amount of attorney fees awarded to a law firm that represented the class in a shareholder lawsuit. Raising what the court described as a novel issue, the objector contended that the lodestar fee must be unenhanced because the action was initiated under a statute with a fee‐shifting provision.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a car purchaser did not raise a triable issue that a dealership failed to provide customers promised add-ons. Also addressed an issue under the Class Action Fairness Act relating to removal jurisdiction. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an engineering company could not proceed with a class action lawsuit alleging that its former concrete supplier unlawfully recorded cellular phone users' calls without their consent. Affirmed an order decertifying the class on the ground that the class representative lacked individual standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en-banc decision, affirmed the approval of a class action settlement in a multidistrict litigation brought against two automobile manufacturers, which had been accused of making misrepresentations about their vehicles' fuel economy. Also upheld attorney fee awards, rejecting objectors' challenges.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought class action suit against Defendant, Coca-Cola Company alleging misleading naming and marketing of “Diet Coke”. District court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Appeals court that the adjective “diet” referred to caloric content and carries a relative meaning and not an absolute meaning.

(United States Second Circuit) - Questions on appeal concern cross-jurisdictional tolling of a class action. Because the appeal presents state law questions that New York’s courts have yet to address, the court certifies the case to the New York Court of Appeals.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The panel held that the defendants’ jurisdictional allegations, which provided a short and plain statement of the parties’ citizenship based on information and belief, satisfied the defendants’ burden of pleading minimal diversity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

British Author/Musician MICHAEL MOORCOCK Releases Live At The Terminal Café.

U.K. Rockers Tomorrow Is Lost Sign With Eclipse Records

Respecting The Environment And A More Sustainable Future, Against Waste And The Use Of Plastic, DeFox Records Will Launch A Special Limited Edition Of Card Disk On The Market.

Fred Nice, The Oxford, MS Native Has Officially Signed An Exclusive Record Deal With NJ-based NuWave Records

CC Is Now Set To Unleash His Highly Anticipated New Single “I SEE LOVE” On All Digital Services August 9, 2019.

“OfficialVybe Has Successfully Made A Deal With Roc Nation. He Will Release A New Single, “Party At Atlantis” This Year.”

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an indigent defendant facing misdemeanor charges was constitutionally entitled to the help of appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal. She had successfully moved to suppress evidence related to driving under the influence. The California Supreme Court agreed with her that she had the right to appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal of the suppression order.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that baseball stadium security guards did not need to submit their wage claims to arbitration. The issue involved whether the claims turned on the meaning of their collective-bargaining agreement. Answering no, the California Supreme Court held that the security guards could proceed in state court.