(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a Veterinary Medical Board decision to take disciplinary action against a veterinarian for improperly treating four animal patients. Affirmed the denial of the veterinarian's petition for a writ of administrative mandate.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the Texas Medical Board did not violate a physician's Fourth Amendment rights when it used its subpoena authority to gain immediate access to his patients' medical records at a health clinic where he worked part-time. Reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this malicious prosecution action brought by plaintiffs against defendant-attorneys, order granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and order granting defendant its attorney fees and costs are reversed, where: 1) the Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 is not the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action; and 2) plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence that they otherwise have a probability of prevailing.

Hundreds of football fans are expected to descend on Ashfield on Friday morning, when Portugal take on Poland in the quarter-final of UEFA Euro 2016.

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.

Sam Fricker only took up diving “seriously” three years’ ago, but he’s already a star of the sport.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.

(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.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(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 Second Circuit) - Revived a New York tort lawsuit alleging that a French bank that evaded U.S. sanctions on Sudan aided and abetted the Sudanese regime in its commission of atrocities against the plaintiffs. Vacated a dismissal and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded for new trial. The district court: (1) violated a previous decision instructing it not to send Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act claims to trial, (2) abused its discretion by precluding two of defendant’s witnesses from testifying.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a shareholder derivative action filed in California because the forum selection provision on the company's certificate of incorporation designated Delaware as the forum for shareholder derivative actions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(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 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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of a defense motion for summary judgment in an Age Discrimination Employment Act claim was proper because the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine question of material fact about the company's reasons for firing him during a period in which the company halved its workforce and fired thousands of workers.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Summary judgment affirmed, award of costs vacated and remanded, where Plaintiff making FLSA claim for unpaid overtime was exempt. But because district court did not provide reasons for declining to award costs to prevailing party, award of costs vacated and that issue remanded back to 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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action alleging the City unlawfully charged plaintiffs and others an unauthorized trash disposal fee, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, on grounds that the City had already reimbursed the plaintiffs for all improper charges, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' individual claims are moot because a court could grant them no further relief beyond what they have already received; and 2) unlike other cases in which the 'pick off' exception has been applied, here, the injunctive relief provisions in the Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles stipulated settlement and judgment required the City to reimburse plaintiffs and other putative class members, and the City complied with this obligation before plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint naming them as parties; and thus 2) under these particular circumstances, the 'pick off' exception does not apply.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the alleged conflict of interest in the acquisition of property by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District's acquisition of property where one of the District's directors had partial ownership of the agency facilitating the sale of the property and whose wife was its listing agent because the former owner had standing under the Government Code to bring the action and that the action was not subject to validation statutes because it was a conflict of interest rather than a contracts claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted California statute that effectively bans the importation and sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn. Affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the Ivory Education Institute's lawsuit, which contended that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

(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 First Circuit) - Appeal from a partial summary judgment grant for defendant is dismissed in a trademark and trade-dress case involving a car manufacturer and the manufacturer of replica vehicles where plaintiff's appeal was moot.

(United States Eleventh Circuit) - Judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, and unjust enrichment, and judgment for one counter-claimant that a settlement agreement barred plaintiffs from bringing the present suit, are affirmed, as plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Where plaintiffs failed to file a postverdict motion regarding the settlement, they cannot raise it on appeal.

(United States First Circuit) - In Shell's suit against a former franchisee under the Petroleum Practices Marketing Act, district court's grant of Shell's motion for permanent injunction is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of a permanent injunction ordering an defendant to cease any use of Shell trademarks, trade dress, or color patterns, and to comply with the post-termination provisions of its franchise agreements with Shell are affirmed; 2) the portion of the injunction ordering and compelling defendant to allow Shell to continue in possession of the service station until the expiration of the lease in 2014 is vacated as Shell made no showing of irreparable harm that might justify an order giving it possession of the property for the full term of the lease; and 3) Shell's motion for summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims was properly granted.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - This appeal is from a series of patent infringement cases against the US claiming that the Freedom-class ships infringe on certain patents owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the court of Federal Claims grant of the Government Motion for Summary Judgement and the damages calculations of FastShip, LLC v. US. (2017) 131 Fed Cl. 592. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of the summary judgement motion for the government and modified the damage award to plaintiff.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. government had breached certain World War II-era contracts with several oil companies. In this long-running litigation, the oil companies claimed that the federal government, which had sued them for hazardous waste cleanup, was partly liable for the cleanup costs due to language in their 1940s government contracts to produce aviation fuel for the war effort. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the oil companies and awarded them nearly $100 million in contract damages, collectively. The federal government appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a school district could impose school impact fees on an agricultural company's new residential housing complex even though it was intended to house only adult seasonal farmworkers. Reversed the decision below.

(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.