(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action for copyright infringement and breach of an employment agreement arising out of defendant's sale of a toy doll idea to a competitor of plaintiff instead of disclosing and assigning it to plaintiff as required by the agreement, an injunction in favor of plaintiff is vacated where: 1) the district court’s imposition of a constructive trust forcing defendant-corporation to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated; 2) because the agreement’s language was ambiguous and some extrinsic evidence supported each party’s reading, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to plaintiff on this issue and holding that the agreement clearly assigned works made outside the scope of defendant's employment; and 3) the district court’s error in construing the employment agreement was sufficient to vacate the copyright injunction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In copyright infringement action brought by plaintiff, maker of Barbie dolls, against defendant, maker of Bratz dolls, judgment for defendant on counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation and awarding attorney fees for prevailing on copyright claim is: 1) reversed and remanded on defendant's counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation which did not rest on the same "aggregate core of facts" as plaintiff's claim, was thus, not compulsory; but 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant fees and costs under the Copyright Act.

(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.

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

They call it Sydney’s Little Portugal, but football fans in Petersham this morning are making a big noise after their team won the UEFA 2016 Cup in France.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a torture victim who had obtained a court judgment against a terrorist organization was not entitled to attach funds from the organization's blocked electronic fund transfers. The torture victim wanted several banks to turn over $36 million to him in order to satisfy a court judgment he had obtained against the terrorist organization in a U.S. court. In a 2-1 decision affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that the punitively sanctioned organization's blocked assets were not subject to attachment.

(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 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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on the basis of foreign official immunity, of a wrongful death action brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

(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.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(NY Supreme Court) - 529285

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that local water districts were not entitled to be reimbursed by the state for the cost of complying with unfunded state mandates to improve water service. The water districts argued that reimbursement was necessary because the passage of Proposition 218 had limited their authority to levy fees. Disagreeing, the California Third Appellate District concluded that their authority to levy fees had not changed. The panel affirmed the trial court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a tax shelter reflected an abusive sham. Affirmed the Tax Court's judgment and imposition of penalties.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Code provision that excludes housing allowances from ministers' taxable federal income. An advocacy group contended that the tax provision violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Disagreeing, the Seventh Circuit held that the longstanding tax code exemption for religious housing is constitutional, reversing the district court.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of a petition arguing that the petitioner's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when they conceded that charges were timely under the applicable statute of limitations before the trial where they were convicted of sexually abusing their daughter, but the court felt that counsel's decision to forego statutes of limitations arguments was not objectively unreasonable.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Determining that the sentencing court in a criminal case did not plainly err in designating a defendant a career offender did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to that designation because the standards for review of the decisions do not necessarily result in equivalent outcomes, but that in the present case the failure to do so resulted in ineffective assistance and the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an arbitration action, arising from a dispute between plaintiff electricity producer and defendant utility over which party bears the cost of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the trial court's vacating of the arbitration award to PG&E is reversed where the question of contact interpretation was ripe for arbitration and plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for postponing the arbitration process.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a brought suit against the U.S. claiming that two federal government agencies selling electricity over-charged appellants for electricity, the Federal Claims Court dismissal for lack of standing is affirmed where plaintiffs lack privity of contract or any other relationship with the government that would confer standing.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to challenge the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff was not a 'municipal corporation' for purpose of Public Utilities Code section 10251, which authorizes municipal corporations to recover all damages from any person who injures any facility or equipment of the municipal corporation through want of care, the petition is denied where the term 'municipal corporation' used in section 10251 does not include irrigation districts.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which the Court of Appeals previously dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs from a nonappealable stipulated judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement, and the parties entered into an amended stipulated judgment, the trial court's decision is reversed where: 1) the amended stipulated judgment is final and appealable and the court's opinion, with respect to the trespass and nuisance claims only, is not advisory; 2) on the merits, plaintiffs were legally entitled to present evidence of plaintiff's emotional distress on their claims for trespass and nuisance as annoyance and discomfort damages recoverable for such torts; and 3) the trial court excluded evidence of emotional distress damages in their entirety.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising after plaintiff was allegedly terminated by his employer, PG&E, for retaliating against a safety inspector who raised issues about his project, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where regardless of whether plaintiff was an at-will employee, PG&E established good cause for terminating him.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order denying summary judgment to plaintiff as to punitive damages. A devastating wildfire started when a tree came into contact with overhead powerlines. The real parties in interest claimed that plaintiff (PG&E) was responsible and sought punitive damages. PG&E had sought summary judgment as to the punitive damages claim which was denied by the trial court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a petition for review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision. Two irrigation districts contended that FERC should not have denied their complaint alleging that an electric utility company breached certain agreements with them. Concluding that FERC's orders were arbitrary and capricious, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied a petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs, Chinese government controlled companies, sought a writ to vacate the district court’s order denying their motion to quash service of criminal summonses. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that plaintiffs had actual notice of the summonses and that there was no error on the part of the district court.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - Defendant's product infringed plaintiff-Gateway's black and white cow and spots trademark where the spots have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, is not functional, and is entitled to protection.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In action in which plaintiff asserted counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the district court's ruling that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention related to the process for distributing rivets is: 1) reversed in part, as to the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds; 2) affirmed in part, that the patent was not abandoned; and 3) remanded for determination of the remaining issues.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assault in the second degree is affirmed and the court held that when a new rule is announced during the one-year grace period for filing a notice of appeal, a judgment becomes final 30 days after sentencing where a defendant does not file a timely direct appeal and does not move for leave to file a late notice of appeal under CPL 460.30 (1).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trip and fall action, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there was dispute as to whether defendant or an adjacent business’s portion of a sidewalk was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly considered the drug factory presumption of Penal Law section 220.25(2); and 2) the decision regarding whether a defendant testifies before the grand jury is a strategic one requiring the expert judgment of counsel, and defense counsel’s refusal to facilitate defendant’s appearance before the grand jury did not amount to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter and possession of a weapon is affirmed where the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury to continue deliberating, following the jury's return of a verdict which polling determined not to be unanimous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a case involving a person struck by a horse during an endurance horse riding event on account of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and because Swigart failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to recklessness and the horse's propensity for danger.