(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 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) - 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) - 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.

(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 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 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 Second Circuit) - In a putative class action alleging that New York City grocery stores operated by Whole Foods Market-defendant systematically overstated the weights of pre‐packaged food products and overcharged customers as a result, the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of Article III standing because he failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact, is vacated where plaintiff plausibly alleged an injury in fact.

(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 Second Circuit) - Dismissal of a class-action suit alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is affirmed because subsequent legislation clarified that receipts with credit card expiration dates do not raise a material risk of identity theft and no specific harm was alleged.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissal of a workplace harassment suit was affirmed because after harassment was reported the company swiftly investigated and fired the harasser. No evidence was presented to support allegations of harassment in the victim's subsequent dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined when the federal court's jurisdiction is first invoked, so although subsequent changes eliminated the basis for jurisdiction the propriety at the time of filing supported the continuation of the case.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. An Americans with Disabilities Act claim should not have been dismissed at the summary judgment phase because there were issues of material fact.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. The removal of children from a home under investigation for abuse did not result in substantive due process violation, but did result in procedural due process rights violation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an SEC enforcement action arising from the activities of a company described as a "sham incubator for startup companies", summary judgment ruling against defendant is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant was an underwriter under section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, and therefore not exempt from the the Act's registration requirements; 2) it did not err in ordering that defendant disgorge all profits, with interest, he obtained from certain transactions; but 3) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the imposition of certain civil sanctions.

(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 DC Circuit) - Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In response to four certified questions from a district court relating to Delaware's Escheat Statute, the Supreme Court of Delaware finds: 1) the new definition of "period of dormancy" for stocks in 12 Del. C. section 1198(9) does not apply retroactively in civil actions involving stocks that were escheated prior to June 30, 2008; 2) common law or statutory causes of actions against parties that are involved in an escheat transaction (other than the State of Delaware) are not superseded by the Escheat Statute. Causes of action for negligence, conversion, and "failure to register" might be available if adequately pleaded, but the court is unable to opine on the question of whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or "some other cause of action" is viable against defendants; 3) only the immunity granted by 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) applies in this case involving escheatment of stock; and 4) "Good faith" under 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) is an affirmative defense, the substantive elements of which must be pleaded and proved by the defendant that claims immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in which the trustee filed an adversary action against the defendants claiming fraudulent conveyance under the section 4(a)(2) of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, judgment in favor of the trustee is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that the statutory condition for a fraudulent conveyance was satisfied; and 2) district court's ruling with respect to the dividend is reversed as the trustee is entitled to the dividend because it was an integral part of the leveraged buy-out.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Judgment of the Tax Court that plaintiff could not deduct from its taxable income either the amount it paid to the states or the legal expenses that it had incurred in the litigation, involving the acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, is affirmed as, under the application of the "origin of the claim" doctrine, costs incurred in defending the lawsuit were capital expenditures and so could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming that Cingular Wireless, after its merger with AT&T, disregarded its obligations under plaintiff's phone service contract with AT&T by failing to provide adequate service coverage and requiring plaintiff to sign a different contract with defendant if he desired to get the service that AT&T had contracted to provide under the first agreement, and that Cingular misrepresented and omitted key facts about the consequence of the merger to the FCC, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) "all the advantages that only the nation's largest wireless company can provide" was a vague statement and provided nothing concrete upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely; 2) plaintiff failed to allege that he actually read or heard the alleged misrepresentations; and 3) violations of the common law of unfair competition and breach of contract did not alone violate California's Unfair Competition Law. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim that Cingular breached its contract with him.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In a breach of contract action arising from failed negotiations for the acquisition and management of a financially struggling trucking company, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the alleged contract was merely an agreement to agree in the future and did not constitute a valid contract because the necessary Stock Purchase Agreement was never signed by the parties; and 2) because the memorandum explicitly stated that it was not the final contract, plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on its contents.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

Latido Music, The Premiere 24-hour Digital Television Network Dedicated To Latin Music, Has Announced The Formation Of Its Advisory Board

Inspired By The Events Of Los Angeles Summer 1969 Emotional Debris Introduces 2 Catchy Rock Records In Line With Quentin Tarantino's New Epic 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'

Fresh Off Their GRAMMY Nomination For Their CD, Teach Me Thy Statutes,the PaTRAM Institute Will Record Their Next CD In Saratov, Russia This August.

NJ Rock Band Harvest Falls Debuts Video, Single, Charity Drive For New Song "MOMENT OF CONSEQUENCE"

MarilynMusic Has Just Released 18 New Songs!

ProgStock Festival Was Founded To Give Artists And Fans In The Genre Of Progressive Rock A Place To Play

Award-winning Recording Artist MARINA V Teams Up With Legendary Singer/songwriter, DAN NAVARRO, For Their Artistic Rendition Of PAT BENATAR'S 1984 GRAMMY-nominated Hit, WE BELONG

The 'Rise Above - ON TOUR' Marketing Program Is An Innovative, Unique And Low Cost Opportunity To Place Your Local Performance In Front Of Committed Music Fans And Store Staff Across All Your Markets

One Of The First Collaborations Between Major Artists From India And The West

Lemon Slice Records Has Released Speakeasy, The New Album By Luke & The Belleville, A Masterly Integration Between The Swing Of The 1930s And The Most Modern Rhythms And Sounds Of Electronic Music.

NJ Rock Band Triple Addiction Scores A Guitar Endorsement And Books Some Big Shows.

Rising Country Artist, Stephanie Ryann, Has Released Her First Music Video For The Song "Whiskey Regret" Off Of Her Debut, Self-titled EP To Commemorate The Anniversary Of Its Release Last October

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(California Court of Appeal) - Order denying resentencing vacated. Defendant petitioned for resentencing of his possession of marijuana conviction based on Proposition 64’s reduction or elimination of criminal penalties for various marijuana offenses. Court held that that even though Defendant was convicted of a felony accessory that was not specifically mentioned in the statute, he still would be eligible for resentencing.