(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(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) - 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 DC Circuit) - Denied. A petition by environmental associations whose members live and work in areas affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project allowing natural gas pipeline expansion was denied because challenges to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn't submit the deferential standard of review of their determinations and due to binding circuit precedent.

(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 Third Circuit) - In long-standing litigation concerning the alleged misuse of the pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) on banana farms throughout Central America and the related health effects on more than two hundred foreign agricultural workers, the Delaware District Court's application of the first-filed rule to dismiss the case with prejudice is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's actions in favor of the first-filed litigation in Louisiana.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a grape rootstock seller's challenge to the mandatory assessments it must pay to the California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission to help fund research for pest-resistant and drought-resistant rootstock, Food & Agr. Code sections 74701-74796, alleging it is an unconstitutional exercise of the state's police power in violation of plaintiff's liberty interests and due process rights under the federal and state Constitutions, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the Commission Law has a reasonable relation to a legitimate purpose and its delegation to nursery owners does not invalide the law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by a class of non-resident commercial fishers who contended that California's discriminatory fishing fees violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, the district court's summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where California’s differential commercial fishing license fees, Cal. Fish & Game Code sections 7852, 7881, 8550.5, and 8280.6, which charged non-residents two or three times more in fees than residents, violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause because California failed to offer a closely related justification for its discrimination against non-residents.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit arising out of press releases issued by the Food and Drug Administration which warned consumers of a possible link between plaintiffs' tomatoes and an outbreak of salmonella, the Claims Court's dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed where the press releases did not effect a regulatory taking.

(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).

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal of denial of Proposition 47 petition for resentencing of felony convictions for theft from an elder and receiving stolen property, Pen. Code sections 368(d), 496(a), the denial of the petition is reversed and remanded solely as to counts 12, 14, and 15, where: 1) the court did not state its reasoning for concluding the crimes alleged in those counts were not eligible for resentencing; and 2) the record does not support the trial court's ineligibility finding.

(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 Supreme Court) - In a suit brought by a village, established pursuant to an 1882 Act that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to survey, appraise, and sell roughly 50,000 acres of Omaha Indian Reservation land lying west of a railroad right-of-way, seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from asserting its jurisdiction over the disputed land and imposing an amended Beverage Control Ordinance on village retailers, the Eighth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in favor of Tribe is affirmed where the 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a putative employment class action brought by meat processors, alleging that the donning and doffing of safety gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that employer's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and violated Iowa wage law, the Eight Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in worker's favor is affirmed where District Court did not err in certifying and maintaining the class because common questions, such as whether donning and doffing protective gear was compensable under the FLSA, were susceptible to classwide resolution even if not all of the workers wore the same gear.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal concerns the interpretation and administration of a family trust, the residuary assets of which comprise cash and other liquid assets, real property, and royalty agreements for licensing of the Marie Callender name, the trial court's ruling, that the trust residuary should be divided based on what the parties referred to as the 'changing fraction method,' is reversed where: 1) based on the terms of the trust that initially divided the residuary into one-third interests for each of the three beneficiaries, those percentage interests remained fixed and the changing fraction method does not apply; and 2) the court erred when it ruled defendant was responsible for a portion of the estate taxes on a piece of real property left to her outright, because the trust stated she was not to be liable for any taxes.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, challenging the FDA's decision to redact certain commercially-sensitive information concerning egg-production farms in Texas, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the FDA properly withheld information under FOIA exemption 4 that was likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

(United States First Circuit) - Sentence and conviction by guilty plea to coercion and enticement of a minor, and the sexual exploitation of a child, are affirmed over defendant's challenges where: 1) the District Court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and 2) the sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case that involves a man, his emotional support dog, and a condominium association's 'no pets' rule, alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 3601-3619, the condominium association's petition for judicial review of a final order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is denied and the Secretary's cross-petition for enforcement of his order is granted where substantial evidence supports the Secretary's finding that the Association's refusal to allow the former condo owner to keep an emotional support dog in his condominium unit as a reasonable accommodation for his disability was unlawful.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action stemming from the plaintiffs' purchase of a piece of land and the opposition the defendants mounted to the plaintiffs' plan to develop that property, alleging defendants' conduct violated various constitutional and state law provisos, including 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 12, section 11, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs did not give sufficient facts to state plausible-on-their-face claims, ones that gave rise to more than a mere possibility of liability.

(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) - In a suit alleging defendant breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico's Law 75 of June 24, 1964, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 section 278, the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against defendant and dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was barred under Law 75's three-year statute of limitations and properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

(United States First Circuit) - In a consolidated criminal appeal, one defendant's sentence and both defendants' convictions of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and its agency, HUD, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371, are affirmed over defendants' meritless claims of error regarding: 1) void for vagueness; 2) insufficient evidence; 3) jury pool contamination; 4) credibility bolstering; 5) prejudicial cross examination; 6) mens rea; 7) supplemental instruction; and 8) improper sentencing.

(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 First Circuit) - In cross-appeals that arise from the ongoing efforts by two brothers to satisfy a multi-billion dollar judgment they won against the Republic of Cuba and other Cuban parties, the District Court's ruling, that certain assets they seek to attach to satisfy that judgment are not the property of the Cuban government and thus are not subject to attachment in satisfaction of their judgment, is affirmed where: 1) the District Court had the authority to revisit its initial determination that Cuba owned the assets subject to the February 12 turnover order because it was not a final judgment; 2) dismissal was proper because U.S. courts will not give extraterritorial effect to a foreign state's confiscatory law. Denial of defendant's motion for attorney is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an attorney's fees action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action is reversed where: 1) an award of attorneys' fees are permissible under F.R.C.P. 41(d) ; but 2) the Fair Labor Standards Act does not permit an award of attorneys' fees for defendants and plaintiff's conduct was not undertaken in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Conviction for wire fraud and aggravated theft in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme is affirmed where: 1) lender negligence, or intentional disregard, in verifying loan application information is not a defense to fraud; and 2) evidence of negligence or intentional disregard is inadmissible as a defense against mortgage fraud charges.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

(United States First Circuit) - In a petition, brought by a native and citizen of Colombia, to review a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen; and 2) she has failed to carry the burden of persuasion for her asylum claim, and her counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily fails.

(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.