(United States Federal Circuit) - In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated state-law torts of misappropriation of trade secrets and engaged in conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, where: 1) the district court relied on judgments about the merits that go beyond what is authorized at the complaint stage; and 2) plaintiffs' specific factual allegations of protective measures taken against trade secret misappropriation are enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

(California Court of Appeal) - Award of attorney fees to defendant in an underlying action for misappropriation of trade secret by seeking to hire away plaintiff's employees, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's findings are free of procedural error; 2) the finding of plaintiff's bad faith is amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor, which they are entitled to do under California state law; and 3) defendant prevailed when plaintiff dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.

(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) - Dismissing the appeal of a district court's denial of an application for writ of mandamus seeking to avoid the production of a report produced at the direction of counsel in a case involving the alleged theft of driverless vehicle technology where attorney-client and work-product privilege were claimed because alternative means of relief were available, the petitioner could not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, and the district court properly determined that privilege did not apply to the discovery document at issue.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of no liability in a trade secret misappropriation case where a jury found that a competitor did not steal Raytheon's trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. Raytheon appealed but the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the company's JMOL and new-trial motions, and also affirmed denial of the competitor's motion for attorney fees.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving two competing healthcare companies, held that nurse recruiters who left one company to join the other did not breach clauses in their contracts that prohibited them from soliciting other employees to leave, because those clauses were unenforceable here. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

Swinging, climbing, and taking risks has always been in Ashton Jamieson’s nature. So his parents made the decision early on to enrol him in gymnastics.

Versatile athlete Garry Young may only be 10, but his love of sport has been a lifelong commitment.

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.

He is only 13, but Max Conti has his eyes on a career in his beloved football.

ELECTION day is tomorrow and members of the Ourimbah Hospital Auxiliary have really raised a sweat.

THE WAITING is over for voters in the marginal seat of Robertson, with Liberal MP Lucy Wicks claiming victory three days after election day, despite an evident swing to Labor.

Weighing no more than a bag of sugar, Wendy the orphaned wallaby is a true survivor — all thanks to her tiny tail and an eagle-eyed motorist­.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a workplace injury case where the worker sued the manufacturer of a car crusher and the company it leased it to rather than his employer claiming defective design because his evidence did not comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed appeal court ruling. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement following a tort action. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, counsel for the injured party in the tort action, breached the settlement agreement by making public statements. Defendant claimed he was not bound by the agreement, but only recommended his clients sign it. California Supreme Court made a factual finding that the Defendant intended to be bound by the settlement agreement.

(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) - Affirmed judgment for nonsuit. Plaintiff, a juvenile, sued Department of Children and Family Services for sexual abuse while she was in foster care. Trial court granted nonsuit because Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from criminal actions of third parties. Appeals court affirmed, but modified cost award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order against Defendant using the mandatory Judicial Council form. The trial court granted the workplace violence restraining order. Appeals court reversed concluding that Defendant was not afforded the required notice under Code of Civil Procedure 527.8 and reversed the ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant, Cosby, raped her in 1982. Defendant responded by claiming Plaintiff was lying in several press releases. Plaintiff filed suit for defamation. Cosby moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied Cosby's motion to strike and the appeals court held that none of Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the anti-SLAPP statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court granted City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued City for injuries from tripping and falling over a defective sidewalk. The trial court ruled that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit arising from a terrible motorcycle accident that alleged defects in the tires and helmets involved failed because the plaintiffs didn't present admissible expert testimony to support their claims.

(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 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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(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) - 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.”

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against Toshiba Corp. filed by investors who alleged securities fraud. The district court dismissed their claims on jurisdictional grounds and, on appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied principles regarding extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws set forth in Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their shareholder complaint against the Japanese firm to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that 14 Holocaust survivors could proceed with their lawsuit against the Republic of Hungary seeking compensation for the seizure and expropriation of their property during the Holocaust. Reversed the district court, which had dismissed their complaint based on principles of international comity and on grounds of forum non conveniens.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an accused murderer's challenge to Mexico's request to extradite him went beyond the narrow role for courts in the extradition process. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization, in this lawsuit brought by the estate of an American schoolteacher who was killed in a terrorist attack in the West Bank. Affirmed a dismissal, finding that the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 did not apply here.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the absence of the invalidated extension statute, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation for property taken from Plaintiffs’ ancestors during the Armenian Genocide brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act were barred by the statute of limitations for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff-former minority shareholder's securities fraud claims alleging that defendant-insiders purchased stock by making a tender offer through a shell corporation without disclosing any information about defendant-company's financial state, is: 1) vacated as to the dismissal of plaintiff's insider trading claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and of her pendent non-federal claims for breach of fiduciary duty, where the duty of corporate insiders to either disclose material non-public information or abstain from trading is defined by federal common law and applies to unregistered securities, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's insider trading claims; but 2) affirmed as to the dismissal of her market manipulation claims, and of her insider trading claims under section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this derivative action brought by plaintiff-shareholders against defendant-directors of company Allergan, alleging that defendants are liable for violations of various state and federal law as well as for breaches of their fiduciary duties to Allergan, dismissal on the pleadings is reversed, where: 1) though plaintiffs did not first make a demand on defendants requesting that Allergan bring the derivative claims in its own name, their particularized allegations establish a reasonable doubt as to whether defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability and as to whether defendants are protected by the business judgment rule; and 2) accordingly, the demand requirement is excused.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(United States Second Circuit) - Conviction of various fraud and conspiracy charges arising out of defendant's involvement in a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies in connection with claims under New York's No Fault Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparation Act, N.Y. Ins. Law section 5102 et seq., which requires that a medical services professional corporation providing treatment under the Act be owned by a licensed physician, is affirmed over defendant's claims that she was the owner of the professional corporation, where New York law is clear that ownership for purposes of the No Fault statute means more than mere paper ownership and that factors beyond formal indicia of ownership may be considered by a fact-finder in determining ownership under New York's no-fault insurance laws.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving the control of a pest control company started by decedent, asserting causes of action to recover damages for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty based on actions taken by defendant (decedent's wife) in cooperation with the decedent, the trial court granted of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion as to plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is: 1) modified by granting defendants' motion to strike the specific claims founded on allegations of protected activity in each remaining cause of action in the cross-complaint; and 2) otherwise affirmed as modified.