(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 Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied. A petition by environmental associations whose members live and work in areas affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project allowing natural gas pipeline expansion was denied because challenges to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn't submit the deferential standard of review of their determinations and due to binding circuit precedent.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision affirming the refusal to register the mark LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS BRING THE TASTE OF LOUISIANA HOME! without a disclaimer of FISH FRY PRODUCTS, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports its finding that FISH FRY PRODUCTS has acquired distinctiveness.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a grape rootstock seller's challenge to the mandatory assessments it must pay to the California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission to help fund research for pest-resistant and drought-resistant rootstock, Food & Agr. Code sections 74701-74796, alleging it is an unconstitutional exercise of the state's police power in violation of plaintiff's liberty interests and due process rights under the federal and state Constitutions, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the Commission Law has a reasonable relation to a legitimate purpose and its delegation to nursery owners does not invalide the law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by a class of non-resident commercial fishers who contended that California's discriminatory fishing fees violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, the district court's summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where California’s differential commercial fishing license fees, Cal. Fish & Game Code sections 7852, 7881, 8550.5, and 8280.6, which charged non-residents two or three times more in fees than residents, violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause because California failed to offer a closely related justification for its discrimination against non-residents.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(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 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 Supreme Court) - In a putative employment class action brought by meat processors, alleging that the donning and doffing of safety gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that employer's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and violated Iowa wage law, the Eight Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in worker's favor is affirmed where District Court did not err in certifying and maintaining the class because common questions, such as whether donning and doffing protective gear was compensable under the FLSA, were susceptible to classwide resolution even if not all of the workers wore the same gear.

(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 First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Conviction for wire fraud and aggravated theft in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme is affirmed where: 1) lender negligence, or intentional disregard, in verifying loan application information is not a defense to fraud; and 2) evidence of negligence or intentional disregard is inadmissible as a defense against mortgage fraud charges.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States First Circuit) - In a petition, brought by a native and citizen of Colombia, to review a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen; and 2) she has failed to carry the burden of persuasion for her asylum claim, and her counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily fails.

(United States First Circuit) - In a wrongful death action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, a provider of vacations for students, is reversed where the court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of causation after allowing no discovery on the issue and receiving no briefing on the matter from the parties.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a summary judgment to the defendant Tyson Foods in a dispute involving their use of the word 'Parks' in reference to hotdogs where the plaintiff once held trademark on this word's use to sell hotdogs until it failed to renew the trademark in the early 2000's.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Investors who alleged that Pier 1 Imports was a trend-based fashion retailer with inventory that carried a significant markdown risk they failed to disclose were unable to adequately plead scienter.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. In appealing an award of summary judgement for the defendants, plaintiff argues she proffered sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact in her sex discrimination case. Finding plaintiff’s arguments fail on the merits, the panel affirms.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court’s order vacating a registered judgement is reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of summary judgment in favor of an officer who used deadly force in an arrest was proper since there weren't issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness. There was no genuine issue of material fact.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. The district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing under Delaware law to bring a direct action against investment advisors instead of initiating a derivative action. They only need to plead an arguable position that they were not relegated to derivative actions.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

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

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant was allegedly made a beneficiary of a trust by handwritten interlineations by the original settlor and trustee of a certain trust. Plaintiff, the successor trustee, moved for summary judgment asserting the interlineations were not valid. The appeals court concluded that valid amendments must be by written instrument, signed by the settlor, and delivered to the trustee. The interlineations were never signed, so the trust was not effectively amended.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff appealed from judgment that dismissed her medical battery cause of action as time-barred. The appeals court held that the discovery rule applies to medical battery claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 as a matter of law.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In plaintiffs' breach of contract case against United States, acting through the FDIC, the Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed in part, revered in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed as to jurisdiction, liability, and the assessment of damages for lost value in the amount of $276 million, net of the receivership deficit, and with an appropriate tax gross-up; 2) judgments as to the award of $67 million in non-overlapping restitution damages and as cumulative the award of wounded bank damages of $28 million are reversed; and 3) dismissal of intervenors' claims relating to the liquidation surplus is reversed and remanded.

(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.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In an objection to the Vice Chancellor's approval of a settlement among a majority of Countrywide stockholders, Countrywide directors, and Bank of America (BOA), related to Countrywide's merger with BOA, denial of the objection is affirmed where the Vice Chancellor did not abuse his discretion by holding that objector's derivative suit claims for breach of asserted duties were worthless and, therefore, added no conceivable value to the merger.

(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) - District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.