(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Struck down as unconstitutional a 2015 amendment to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act that created a debt-collection exception. The issue arose in a consumer lawsuit alleging that Facebook unlawfully sent text messages using an automated telephone dialing system (to alert users, as a security precaution, when their account was accessed from an unrecognized device). Reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order granting probation with amendments. Defendant admitted to acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud. The trial court placed Defendant on probation with various terms and conditions. Defendant appealed the conditions. Appeals court affirmed, but struck certain fees.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application seeking issuance of a subpoena to Google, Inc. for the disclosure of certain subscriber information to assist him in ongoing litigation in England. The district court granted Plaintiff’s application for the information from Google. Concluded that there was doubt whether 1782 could be used in a foreign proceeding and vacated and remanded for further proceedings in the district court.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed for human trafficking of a minor but affirmed in all other respects. Defendant was convicted of pimping a minor and human trafficking. Defendant argued that the human trafficking count should be reversed because the alleged minor was actually an undercover police officer. The appeals court agreed and remanded for re-sentencing.

CW Is Also The Founder And DJ Of ‘Mo’ Money’ Events At Marbella’s Elite Olivia Valere Night Club Since 2015

UK Band Unveils Music Video Ahead Of “Strangers” Album Release

It Will Be Released On April 21st, And Available Exclusively To Record Store Day Participating Retailers Worldwide.

French Native Songstress Ned Released Her Debut UK Single ‘Give Me More’ On 6th April 2018

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

Finnish Alt-rock Five-piece Planet Case Are Ready To Unveil Their Debut EP ‘Simple Thoughts’, Out On 24th May Via Up And Coming Finnish Label Soit Se Silti.

The Video Was Released On April 25th

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 Supreme Court) - Holding that a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual claim, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations and reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a District Court dismissal of an untimely class complaint.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed an order remanding a consumer class action to state court. The defendant home security equipment businesses had removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, but the plaintiffs showed that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied. The Third Circuit noted that under the local-controversy exception, a district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action involving a uniquely local controversy, as defined in the statute.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the approval of a consumer class action settlement in a case where Volkswagen entered into the $10-billion settlement with a class of consumers after the automaker admitted that it had installed devices in certain 2009 - 2015 diesel model diesel cars for the purpose of cheating on U.S. emissions tests. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a settlement class or approving the settlement as fair and adequate.

(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.

(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 Third Circuit) - Reversed the certification of a class in a lawsuit alleging that a restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its parking lots were difficult to ambulate in a wheelchair. The 500-location restaurant chain contended that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy some of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Agreeing, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to reconsider if a class should be certified.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed decertification of a class of retired University of California employees who claimed they were denied promised health insurance benefits. The retirees, who had worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, appealed the trial court's ruling that decertified the class for lack of commonality. On appeal, the First Appellate District held that the trial court's decertification ruling had relied on erroneous legal standards.

(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) - Affirmed the dismissal, on res judicata grounds, of a proposed wage-and-hour class action. While the plaintiff conceded that she was subject to a state class-action settlement that released all claims arising from the same set of allegations upon which her Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit was based, she nonetheless contended that her FLSA action should be allowed to proceed. Agreeing with the trial court, the Ninth Circuit held that res judicata applied.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the certification of a class action alleging that a software company's downloadable product to improve computer speed and performance was a scam. Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass of software purchasers.

(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 Second Circuit) - Revived a proposed class action alleging that a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending doctors unsolicited fax advertisements. The company attempted to moot the case by paying the named plaintiff's claim in full. Vacated a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that employees who filed a proposed wage-hour class action were not entitled to intervene in an earlier, similar action that was being settled. Affirmed the denial of both mandatory and permissive intervention.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Held that the class-action device was not the proper one for home health care assistants to use in seeking refunds of fair-share fees they had paid to a union for collective-bargaining representation. Affirmed the denial of class certification, on reconsideration following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court did not adequately explain its reason for rescinding certification of a class in a business dispute between numerous used-car dealerships and a financing company. Vacated the class certification ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in denying class certification to truck drivers bringing wage and hour claims against their employer. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that errors were made in analyzing whether predominantly common issues existed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in dismissing a proposed wage-hour class action on statute of limitations grounds. The issue involved the so-called death knell doctrine. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in an opinion after transfer from the California Supreme Court.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that, in light of intervening decisional law, the trial court must reconsider its denial of class certification in a wage and hour lawsuit. Reversed and remanded, stating that the trial court must provide a more detailed explanation of its reasons for not certifying a class in this suit brought by employees of a grocery store chain.

(United States Second Circuit) - Addressed a fee dispute between two law firms that had served as co‐class counsel in a securities class action. Affirmed an order enjoining a state court lawsuit in which one of the firms brought claims against the other for tortious interference and unjust enrichment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a proposed consumer class action lawsuit because the plaintiffs had failed to bring the case to trial within five years, as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure. It did not matter that the class claims had been dismissed within five years.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed class certification issues in a lawsuit brought by Arizona foster children who alleged that they were deprived of required medical and other services as a result of statewide policies and practices. Affirmed a class certification order in part and vacated it in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a debt collector could cure its failure to use a minimum type-size in consumer collection letters. However, this did not justify the dismissal of the entire class action complaint here. Reversed and remanded.

(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 Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.