(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that businesses may not recover compensation for purely economic losses suffered from mere proximity to an industrial accident (a massive, months-long leak from a natural gas storage facility). Negligence law did not provide them a remedy for income lost because of the leak, in this case where they alleged no property damage or personal injury.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case involving the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement Agreement, held that the district court erred in analyzing certain business claims for economic loss. The issue had to do with the process of matching revenues and expenses. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Plaintiff, SEC, filed suit against Defendant for failure to register interests in oil and gas drilling projects as securities. District court granted SEC motion for summary judgement. Appeals court revered and remanded because Defendant had raised several issues of material fact that the district court failed to consider.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate is denied. Remanded to consider restitution. Los Angeles County filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas for a natural gas leak that continued for months and caused damage to residents. The criminal charges were resolved by a plea agreement, where a no contest plea was entered to the charge of failure to immediately report gas leak. Plaintiffs sought to set aside plea agreement and seek restitution under the California Constitution. The appeals court held that victims do not have a right to appeal a criminal case judgment, but they do have a right to restitution. However, restitution is only available for crimes where there is an actual conviction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a case challenging California's "Shark Fin Law," which makes it "unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer of sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin" in the state, the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint is affirmed where the claim that the Shark Find Law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act is without merit, as plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between federal authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage shark fishing in the ocean off the California coast and the California Shark Fin Law.

(United States First Circuit) - In a lawsuit over the trademarking and continued sale of a chicken sandwich, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and Copyright Act, the district court's order dismissing the federal claims and declination of jurisdiction over the supplemental Puerto Rico law claims is affirmed where: 1) there was no violation of the Copyright Act because neither the name "Pechu Sandwich" nor the recipe are eligible for copyright protection; and 2) the complaint fails to sufficiently plead that defendant committed fraud in the procurement of a federal trademark for the sandwich.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by operators of recycling centers where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their California Redemption Value, against companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, contending that defendants knowingly and "falsely" label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with "CA CRV," "California Redemption Value," or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California, and alleging common law tort claims against defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, and breach of express warranty, the trial court's judgment of dismissal is affirmed where the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded by a California court because it would violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which plaintiff challenged, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which forbids manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products, the district court's summary judgment to agency-defendant is reversed where plaintiff, a middleman involved in the advertising industry, had standing to challenge section 25503, because the Supreme Court's opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), requires heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful products, rather than the intermediate scrutiny previously applied to section 25503 by the Ninth Circuit in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir.1986).

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case involving personal guaranties to secure real estate development loans, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in favor of the lender is affirmed by an equally divided court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States First Circuit) - Sentence for conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location, 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 846 and 860, is affirmed over defendant's claims that the sentence is both procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable where, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as the applicability of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the starting point for a court's sentencing determination is the guideline range, not the parties' recommendations.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS is affirmed over restaurant company-appellant's appeal, where: 1) the Board's decision contains no harmful legal error; and 2) the Board's finding that the mark is generic is supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case involving a dispute over an unwritten and allegedly exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff and Hormel Foods Corp. under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act (Law 75), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 sections 278-278e, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where plaintiff's exclusivity claim as presented is time-barred; and 2) reversed in part where the statute of limitations bar to recovery extends to plaintiff's Costco-related claim as well.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a section 1983 suit against several county entities and individuals, alleging various constitutional violations, including defendant's retaliation against plaintiff for publicly opposing of defendant's reelection as the President of the Moosic, Pennsylvania Borough Council, the district court's decision denying defendant's claim to qualified immunity is reversed where he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if plaintiff's allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a class action brought by three former baristas at Starbucks, challenging defendant's practice of withholding state and federal taxes from baristas' paychecks based on cash tips received, the district court's dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the case remanded to state court where: 1) the Tax Injunction Act and the Anti-Injunction Act deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief; and 2) the federal-state comity doctrine bars the district court from awarding statutory damages on the state-tax component of the plaintiffs' claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is affirmed by an en banc court where: 1) thirty years ago, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986), this Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the same California and Professions Code provision; and 2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) did not modify the Central Hudson test that been applied in Actmedia.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Investors who alleged that Pier 1 Imports was a trend-based fashion retailer with inventory that carried a significant markdown risk they failed to disclose were unable to adequately plead scienter.

(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 DC Circuit) - Dismissed. The Wehrum Memo relating to air quality was not a final agency action, so the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear complaints about its contents.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant correctional employees in a suit brought by a prisoner was proper because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the defendant's didn't provide objectively unreasonable medical care.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A suit arising from the denial of a petition for declaration of citizenship because the applicant failed to demonstrate that they resided in the jurisdiction where they applied was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Administrative Procedures Act provides an adequate remedy.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. The district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing under Delaware law to bring a direct action against investment advisors instead of initiating a derivative action. They only need to plead an arguable position that they were not relegated to derivative actions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The County of Los Angeles successfully brought a conservatorship action under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that allows involuntary detention of persons who are dangerous or gravely disabled due to mental disorder. Conservatee appealed. The appeals court found no reversible error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment and reinstated jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The trial court granted Defendant, Wells Fargo’s motions including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict that found Wells Fargo committed fraud in a Home Affordable Mortgage Program case. The appeals court reversed the rulings and the judgment that it found in favor of Wells Fargo and remanded for further proceedings consistent with appeals court ruling.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The act of handing a complaint to a prison official fulfilled the prison mailbox rule regarding the date of filing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. D.C. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial, was not afforded an evidentiary hearing, was medicated without her consent and had ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court found no reversible error, but cautioned the trial court to state its findings as to the factors set out in Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. M.M. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that his trial did not begin within 25 days of his jury demand. The appeals court held that M.M. forfeited the contention because the delay was due to his own counsel’s requests to accommodate his schedule.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a contract and tort action arising from the parties' execution of a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), summary judgment for defendant on limitations grounds is reversed where a provision within the SPA permitting the representations and warranties of the parties to survive closing did not unambiguously state the parties' intent to contractually reduce the applicable California statute of limitation to one year.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiffs' consolidated securities action against defendants alleging fraud in connection with a merger, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion: 1) in dismissing the case with prejudice as the plaintiffs had a number of opportunities to craft a complaint that complied with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; 2) in denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); and 3) in denying the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee of a corporation and the subsidiaries it had acquired in related leveraged buy-outs, seeking to recover payments the shareholders of the acquired corporations had received for their shares on the grounds that the payments to them had been fraudulent transfers avoidable under Delaware law and the Bankruptcy Code, grant of shareholders' motion to dismiss is affirmed as, in accordance with prior case law, the payments were exempt settlement payments under section 546(e).

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract based on defendant's refusal to allow certain of its noteholders to convert their notes to cash and stock following the acquisition of defendant, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under the express terms of the indenture agreement, the acquirer was not a "Public Acquirer" because its securities that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange were not its ordinary shares.