WHAT happens in Vegas typically stays in Vegas, but Carissa Uno will take everything she learned at a gymnastics tournament in Sin City to inspire her to greater heights.

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.

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

(United States First Circuit) - Convictions of several police officers on charges of conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights and for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, are affirmed, as the facts in this case amply support the determination that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired to violate various residents' rights and the evidence supporting the convictions for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute is substantially the same and is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the facts in the case.

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(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 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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from a judgment affirming a medical malpractice arbitration award in favor of defendant, judgment is reversed and remanded, where the California Arbitration Act and the California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitrations require that: 1) a neutral arbitrator disclose that a lawyer in the arbitration is a member of the administering "dispute provider resolution organization"; and 2) section 1286.2 (a)(6) compels a trial court to vacate the arbitration award if the arbitrator fails to disclose that information.

(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 First Circuit) - District court's decision admonishing interested party-attorney for unprofessional conduct in his representation of a junior mortgagor related to the sale of the foreclosed property, is affirmed, where: 1) attorney's claim that opposing attorney converted funds was never supported by any evidence; 2) attorney's allegation that opposing attorney violated the criminal usury statute was frivolous; and 3) attorney turned what seemed to be innocent misunderstandings into claims of perjury in his allegations of false statements.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - The trial court's order awarding attorney fees to defendant State Bar as the prevailing party on a special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint which sought to vacate a stipulation she had entered into with the defendant regarding two disciplinary actions against her, is reversed and remanded, where the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded it from awarding attorney fees under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(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.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an action to enjoin enforcement of an attorney-conduct guideline that bans advertising with quotations from judicial opinions unless the opinions appear in full, summary judgment in favor of defendant, the Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff published on his law firm's website complimentary remarks about him by judges in separate judicial opinions; and 2) the attorney-conduct guideline adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.

(United States Third Circuit) - In this appeal considering whether defendant-prison-administrators are entitled to qualified immunity for an inmate's suicide, the district court's order denying summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed, where defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from an Eighth Amendment claim that serious deficiencies in the provision of medical care by a private, third-party provider led to the inmate's suicide.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In this action brought by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that prison officials showed a deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of his constitutional rights, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant prison officials, where the district court erred in denying the prison officials' motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - In this civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant volunteer ambulance corps and several of its directors violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by levying disciplinary charges against her without a hearing, summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiff's federal constitutional claims is affirmed, where: 1) emergency medical care and general ambulance services are not "traditionally exclusive public functions"; 2) extensive State regulation and oversight does not therefore entwine defendant with the State; and 3) defendant's conduct does not amount to state action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Removal of petitioner Wrocklage from his position as Customs and Border Protection Officer at defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is vacated and remanded, where the charges of unauthorized disclosure and lack of candor are not supported by substantial evidence.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this case, plaintiff parole agent was disciplined by his employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, for conducting a purportedly unlawful search of a residence. After an administrative hearing, the discipline was upheld by defendant State Personnel Board. Denial of plaintiff's administrative mandamus petition seeking to overturn the Board's decision is reversed, where: 1) plaintiff was entitled to actual notice of the contents of the "Letter of Intent" within one year of the date of discovery, not constructive notice by mail as perfected by his employer; and 2) service by mail was untimely as it was received after the outer limit of the relevant notification period.

(United States First Circuit) - Orders revoking Attorney Ryan's pro hac vice admission and imposing monetary sanctions are affirmed, where Ryan falsified evidence and lied to the court about attempting to interfere with the deposition of his client.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Plaintiff was convicted of second-degree murder, served over twenty-six years in custody, and was released in 2009 after a federal judge determined that falsified evidence had been introduced at trial and conditionally granted a writ of habeas corpus. The state then dismissed the charges against plaintiff, who subsequently filed this action against defendants, two police detectives, who plaintiff alleges fabricated police reports, investigative notes, and photographs of the crime scene during their homicide investigation. The district court's order denying absolute witness immunity to defendants is affirmed, where: 1) defendants' notes, investigative reports, and photographs of the crime scene were analogous to the sorts of documentary and physical evidence that fall outside the protection of absolute immunity; 2) policy interests behind absolute immunity for testimony do not apply to the investigative materials in this case; and 3) defendants plainly acted in an investigative capacity in producing the notes, reports, and crime-scene photographs, and qualified immunity provided sufficient protection for these activities.

(United States Supreme Court) - Disciplinary sanctions imposed by the state bar, pursuant to Cannon 7(C)(1), on a candidate for judicial office, who mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions for her campaign, are affirmed over a First Amendment challenge, where Cannon 7(C)(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Convictions against defendant, an attorney convicted of money laundering while representing a client charged with receiving stolen property, are affirmed where: 1) the prosecutor's failure to correct a grand jury witnesses' false testimony as to his motives for cooperating and failure to disclose impeachment evidence to the grand jury do not constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal; and 2) the prosecution's ex parte request that the district court decide in camera whether the government witness's informant activity needed to be disclosed at trial was not improper.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming a district court dismissal of claims by an attorney suspended from the practice of law for a year in a suit against a host of judicial officers and administrators who participated in his disciplinary proceedings seeking the reinstatement of his license and money damages on the basis of alleged First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, but the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where a state court loser files in federal court and bars such actions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of a lawful permanent resident's Bivens action against a government immigration attorney who intentionally submitted a forged document in an immigration proceeding to harm the individual's case. The attorney, who was criminally prosecuted and barred from practicing law for 10 years for his actions, argued that it would be improper to extend the Bivens remedy to this situation. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a Bivens remedy was available on these specific facts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a Veterinary Medical Board decision to take disciplinary action against a veterinarian for improperly treating four animal patients. Affirmed the denial of the veterinarian's petition for a writ of administrative mandate.