(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 Court's Committee on Admissions and Grievances' findings of fact and recommendations are adopted, with certain exceptions and attorney Tustaniwsky is publicly reprimanded and suspended from practice before this Court for one year.

(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 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.

(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.

(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 Second Circuit) - In an order to show cause why disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed on a lawyer, based primarily on his numerous defaults in several appeals in the Court of Appeals, the lawyer is publicly reprimanded from practice before the Court for eighteen months, both for his misconduct in those appeals and for his failure to properly respond to the order to show cause.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an ethics case, the bankruptcy court's order to vacate a default judgment against the debtor after finding that plaintiffs' attorney, Max Folkenflik, intentionally deceived the court in omitting to inform it of a relevant settlement agreement is affirmed where Folkenflik's misconduct constituted a fraud on the court.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an attorney was entitled to another hearing on whether he should be suspended from appearing before the district court. The case arose from alleged improprieties in a court-supervised settlement program established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552, dispute arising from requests for Notices of Seizure of Infringing Merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. section 133.21(c), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where court properly held that plaintiff's requests fall within Exemption 4 but erred in finding that 19 C.F.R. section 103 fees had been invalidated.

(United States First Circuit) - In dispute arising from a district court order preliminarily enjoining defendants from misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets by selling computer mouse products similar to or derived from those made by plaintiff, order is affirmed where court properly upheld the validity of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, involving certain ergonomic computer mouse products, district court's judgment is: 1) reversed where the it erred in extending the injunction to defendant's ErgoRoller product because the record does not support the finding that defendant breached the NDA in producing this product; 2) affirmed where it did not err in the duration of the injunction as applied to the other enjoined products; and 3) affirmed where it did not err in jury instructions on lost profits, as but for the breach, plaintiff could have recovered the lost profits by employing another company to manufacture the products and selling them.

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's orders denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the motion to strike its cost memorandum in favor of defendants are reversed and remanded, where parties to a settlement agreement can validly specify that one party is potentially a prevailing party and reserve for later determination by the trial court whether that party did prevail, as well as other factual matters involved in making an award of statutory attorney fees.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In suit to correct inventorship of the "Tuschl Patents," the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in ruling that this is not a dispute between States falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; 2) plaintiff was free to choose between filing this suit in the Supreme Court and filing in federal district court; and 3) the University of Massachusetts is not an indispensable party.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court precludes defendant from recovering the interest paid on the borrowed funds that are deposited with the court in lieu of an appeal bond, and a recent amendment of rule 8.278, which expressly allows recovery of interest in this situation, and which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, should not be given retroactive application.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an unfair competition suit arising out of claims by plaintiff, a large scale laundry business, against defendant, a new competitor in the laundry business and one of its own former employees, summary adjudication for defendant on all claims not arising under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), is: 1) reversed in part, where the trial court erred in concluding that the non-UTSA claims were preempted or displaced by UTSA because each cause of action has a basis independent of any misappropriation of a trade secret; and 2) otherwise affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's orders purporting to clarify a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendants from using various materials and processes first developed by plaintiff, are vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked jurisdiction over this case when plaintiff initiated this lawsuit because plaintiff's complaint does not allege a sufficient controversy concerning inventorship, but instead concerns only ownership of the disputed patent.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a case involves trade secrets relating to opaque polymers, which are hollow spheres used as paint additives for interior and exterior paints to increase the paint's opacity, the International Trade Commission's (ITC) decision, imposing default judgment sanctions for spoliation of evidence and entering a limited exclusion order against plaintiff, is affirmed where the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff's spoliation of evidence and further did not abuse its discretion in entering the limited exclusion order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the jury verdict for plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part where: 1) defendant’s liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure is affirmed; 2) four patent infringement claims are reversed and four are affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards are vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a jury verdict for plaintiff as follows: 1) defendant's liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure was affirmed; 2) several patent infringement claims were reversed and several were affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards were vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the competitor on the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and common law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a defendant was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, because the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice meant no one had prevailed here. Affirmed the denial of fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment against the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and civilian law conversion claim, in relevant part.

WESTERN Sydney Wanderers’ newest recruit - Bruno Piñatares - has arrived from South America with a burning ambition “to win as many titles as possible”.

Australian hockey star Adam Imer will be pulling on the green-and-yellow of Brazil this August and is heading to the Olympic Games where his biggest challenge will be taking on the Aussies.

FINDING the net for the Wanderers fulfilled one of teenage soccer star Ben Morrison’s dreams — but he has higher goals in his sights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the doctrine of laches barred a woman from seeking to recover a painting by Pablo Picasso hanging in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting once belonged to her ancestors, German Jews who fled the Nazi regime. Affirmed a dismissal based on undue delay in bringing the lawsuit.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiff contended that Defendant was strictly liable for an alleged automobile defect that caused injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant stating that Plaintiff had failed to establish Defendant acquired successor liability for the alleged defect.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action on behalf of their 13-year-old son who was struck and killed by a school bus. The jury found that Plaintiff’s son was 80 percent responsible for the accident and awarded $250,000 in damages. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial. The appeals court held that Plaintiffs had not made a cognizable argument as to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and found no merit in Plaintiff’s claims. Affirmed judgment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Distict court’s summary judgment that deceased BSNF employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when driving to work affirmed. Deceased was a BNSF railroad employee, but in court’s judgment no jury could reasonably find BSNF negligent in any way, so the question of work status need not be addressed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed immunity, reversed attorney fees. Plaintiff sued Defendant on a premises liability claim. The trial court found that governmental immunity applied and awarded judgment to Defendant along with attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038. The appeals court held that government immunity did apply, but reversed the award of attorney fees because there was a real question of whether government immunity was applicable or not such that Plaintiff’s lawsuit had a reasonable cause which defeated the attorney fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a homeowner, attempted a mortgage loan modification with Defendant, but when Plaintiff fell behind in payments, Defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff sued for negligence. The trial court sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that no tort duty is owed on contracts. The appeals court held that a lender does not owe a borrower a duty to offer, consider, or approve a loan modification.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment on the verdict and remand for new trial. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries suffered in a bus accident. The jury found for Plaintiff but awarded minimal damages on the belief from an expert testimony that future surgery would not be required. The court awarded Defendant costs and attorney fees under CCP 998. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the expert testimony exceeded the scope of permissible impeachment. The appeals court agreed and ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the post-trial motions.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In a claim of negligence for secondary exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient cause. The panel held that in the context of asbestos claims, the substantial-factor test requires “demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.”