(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction of a Norfolk, Virginia, city council member for wire fraud, extortion under color of official right, conspiracy to commit such offenses, and two counts of perjury. The charges stemmed from the council member's solicitation of bribes from local real estate developers. He raised various substantive and procedural challenges to his conviction, but the Fourth Circuit found no merit in them and affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(United States Third Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit for preliminary injunctive relief against its former vice president of operations, following defendant's acceptance of a senior executive position with plaintiff's competitor, Hostess Brands, seeking to protect its trade secrets involving plaintiff's popular line of Thomas' English Muffins, of which defendant was one of only seven people who possessed all of the knowledge necessary to replicate the muffins, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court had discretion to enjoin defendant from working at Hostess to the extent this proposed employment threatened to lead to the misappropriation of trade secrets; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on its misappropriation of trade secrets claim; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion when, faced with evidence of defendant's suspicious conduct during his final weeks at plaintiff, it determined that a stronger remedy was needed in the interim to protect plaintiff from imminent irreparable harm; 4) district court was correct in concluding that the harm of plaintiff's trade secrets being disclosed to Hostess outweighed the harm to defendant of not being able to commence employment at Hostess until the court made a final determination of the merits following a trial; and 5) district court was correct in concluding that the public interest in preventing the misappropriation of plaintiff's trade secrets outweighs the temporary restriction of defendant's choice of employment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Rejected a U.S. citizen's challenge to an order certifying him as extraditable to the Czech Republic, where he had been convicted of attempted extortion many years ago. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(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 Second Circuit) - In an action concerning a property lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation, seeking damages for the son's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring that the lease and joint venture agreement were void, the District Court's rulings denying the son's discovery requests and granting summary judgment to corporate-plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste; and 2) the parol evidence rule applies in this case and the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect, thus the purported joint venture agreement is unenforceable.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a car crash, construed Mississippi's Uninsured Motorist Act. Held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in this diversity action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and reversed a District Court order in the case of the dismissal of a tenured professor. The professor's guilty plea to felony charges relating to the dismissal were serious cause sufficient to support his firing.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An employee who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act over unpaid wages whose case was dismissed when the company paid what was owed was not entitled to attorney's fees because he didn't technically prevail in the legal action.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and during the course of his employment he was required to sign a document that contained an arbitration agreement. He was not afforded the opportunity to read the document before signing and the document was not explained or provided in his first language, Chinese. After his employment with Plaintiff ended, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are not categorically unconscionable as a waiver of the “Berman procedure” found in Labor Code 98, but an agreement to arbitrate must provide an accessible and affordable process. However, in this case the Court reversed the appeals court because the agreement had unusually high degree of procedural unconscionability and the Plaintiff was coerced and misled into accepting this agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - In defendants' petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate both its order finding real-party-in-interest did not waive the attorney-client privilege as it applied to an e-mail inadvertently turned over during discovery, and the court's order disqualifying a law firm from representing defendants in the underlying lawsuits, the petition is denied where, regardless of how the attorney obtained the documents, whenever a reasonably competent attorney would conclude the documents obviously or clearly appear to be privileged and it is reasonably apparent they were inadvertently disclosed, the State Fund rule requires the attorney to review the documents no more than necessary to determine whether they are privileged, notify the privilege holder the attorney has documents that appear to be privileged, and refrain from using the documents until the parties or the court resolves any dispute about their privileged nature.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court judgment to the plaintiffs following a bench trail in an action under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act because the plaintiffs were required to assume the unpaid withdrawal liability of their predecessor to a multiemployer pension plan, a constructive notice standard applied and a reasonable purchaser would have been aware of the liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying petitions for review challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's authority to issue permits for US long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an in rem suit filed against a ship for cargo damage sustained in transit because liability for the damage was covered by the carrier's bill of lading, which included a forum selection clause requiring suit be brought in South Korea because although South Korean courts would not allow an in rem suit, the plaintiff could have brought an in personam suit and chose not to do so for strategic reasons and the foreign forum selection clause did not violate the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an arbitration proceeding default award for hundreds of millions of dollars against a Chinese company that did not appear after service by mail in a Los Angeles action brought by an American investment partnership complaining of a breach of contract because the Hague Service Convention does not permit Chinese citizens to be served by mail, nor does it permit parties to set their own terms of service by contract.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement case, summary judgment was granted to defendant as no reasonable jury could conclude that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's mark in any way, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for attorneys' fees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reversed where plaintiff's stated claims under the Lanham Act, alleging false advertising and unfair competition, were sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

(United States Tenth Circuit) - In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of liability under the Lanham Act for reverse passing off. At trial, a jury found that a manufacturer of industrial tires had arranged to obtain a competing manufacturer's tires with the labels removed and used the tires to solicit business from one of the competitor's customers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a judgment that these actions violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits conduct that would confuse consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. The panel's opinion also addressed other issues including trade dress validity.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Defendant prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity in a case claiming cruel and unusual punishment where a PTSD-suffering prisoner asked guards not to stand behind him but they continued to do so. It did not violate clearly established constitutional law for non-medical staff to refuse to provide what amounts to medical accommodation that hadn't been ordered by the medical staff.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that federal labor law did not preempt retired football players' claims that the National Football League encouraged them to take pain-masking medications without warning them of the drugs' risks. The NFL contended that the players' claims were preempted by sections 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Rejecting the league's argument, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, as pleaded, the players' negligence and other state law claims did not arise from collective bargaining agreements or require their interpretation. The panel therefore reversed dismissal of the proposed class action suit.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a man who was shot in the parking lot after a professional football game could not proceed with his personal injury claims. His lawsuit against the football team was barred by the statute of limitations. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a labor union's claim that a municipality violated a law concerning contract bidding when it hired a new private company to operate its municipal bus system. Reversed a dismissal and remanded, in this case involving a statutory bidding preference tied to labor rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a former qui tam relator was not entitled to share in the government's recovery against a company under the False Claims Act in light of his prior voluntary dismissal of his qui tam action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

Phishing scammers targeting Nedbank customers with malware.

A SCREAMING 419 scammer. Maybe he is frustrated because nobody believes in the $700,000 prize money.

Rosa Daniel wants you to come to Rome to pick up a high priority package.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.