(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment against a yoga student's claim that her instructor caused her injury while adjusting her posture during a yoga class. According to the student, the instructor harmed her when he moved her leg, lower back, and neck. On appeal, the California Second Appellate District agreed with the yoga instructor that there was no triable issue as to causation, because the student had offered no evidence conflicting with that of the instructor's experts, who opined that the student's medical issues were unrelated to the yoga class.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a child who suffered head injuries while playing in a youth water polo league stated a claim that USA Water Polo acted negligently and unlawfully by failing to implement concussion-management and return-to-play protocols. Reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action brought by her parent on her behalf.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract action against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government is affirmed where the contracts whereby plaintiff provides closing services for homes owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unambiguously preclude plaintiff from charging additional closing fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's appeal of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sections 2412(a) and (d)(1)(A) (2012), the Claims Court's conclusion that comments made by the Court during a hearing and prior to the Government taking corrective action materially altered the relationship between the parties such that plaintiff qualified as a 'prevailing party' under the EAJA, the award is reversed where a strong comment by a trial court is not tantamount to a ruling on the merits or a court order.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the superior court's determination that a movie theater being constructed using a loan from the city government and receiving city grant funds was subject to California's prevailing wage laws as they apply to 'public works.'

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a False Claims Act lawsuit had to be dismissed because it was not the first-filed case accusing the defendant pharmaceutical company of certain improper Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. The plaintiff (relator) argued that his action should be allowed to proceed because the earlier action was no longer pending. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that a violation of the first‐to‐file bar, which prohibits a person from bringing a related qui tam action when one is already pending, cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint. The panel reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a property owner's negligence, breach of contract, and other claims arising out of a building construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contractor breached its contract with a subcontractor. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial but remanded for recalculation of damages under the Louisiana Prompt Payment Act, in this case involving an Army Corps of Engineers' project.

(California Court of Appeal) - Struck down a portion of a city ordinance authorizing development impact fees for parks and recreation. Affirmed the lower court in relevant part, in this case involving California's Mitigation Fee Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived Asian‐owned companies' claims that city employees discriminatorily enforced municipal building codes on the basis of race and personal animus. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a veteran's surviving spouse who had litigated over certain benefits was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. The spouse of a deceased World War II veteran argued that she had prevailed on her benefit claims and thus was entitled to recover her attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Federal Circuit held that she had not obtained a sufficiently successful result to qualify as a prevailing party for purposes of the attorney fee statute.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of police officer having qualified immunity. Plaintiff alleged that police officer violated her Fourth Amendment rights when he entered her home without a warrant and under a false pretense to investigate fraud related to social security benefits. The Ninth Circuit held that the officer had qualified immunity with respect to a civil or administrative investigation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

You have been sent a MALICIOUS file!

No, you did not request a changelog and yes you will get malware if you click on the link!

A very long scam e-mail from Linda Zhong who lives in another dimension in time.

Britis Airways E-ticket Phishing scam

We have a friend from Flipora, which we did not know we had... Oh sorry our mistake, iyaloo27@gmail.com is not our friend, he/she is a spammer and spammers are our enemy.

Your Verizon Wireless bill from the IRS. Wow, they must be serious about collecting the outstanding amount, because they called fridaysug85 to do the collection!

Poorly formatted, fake UPS Shipping service report, including malware.

A Yahoo Notification from AOL? Are the phishing scammers getting confused?

An unknown purchase order inquiry from Captain Fabri. You can smell the virus a mile away.

BARR. Katie Richardson wants you to contact DR HILARRY NDUBEM. Do not contact any of these swindlers... ever!

Quick an easy loans... um... scams.

An extremely legitimate looking phishing scam aimed at NatWest credit card holders.

Royal Mail Shipment scam with a ZBot Trojan attached to it.

A SCREAMING 419 scammer. Maybe he is frustrated because nobody believes in the $700,000 prize money.

A fake Facebook message, taking you to some online pharmacy site.

Malware delivered via a link in a fake DHL Notification e-mail.

Stock market spammers still trying to push this stock.