(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action claim brought against defendants for alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN) is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court correctly determined the private equity defendants were investors, not "single employers" with their subsidiary within the meaning of WARN, and thus were properly dismissed; and 2) vacated in part and remanded, where the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant BHY S&B HoldCo, LLC, which operated the entity plaintiff worked for, because plaintiff raised a question of material fact as to whether defendant BHY S&B HoldCo, LLC was a single employer with BH S&B Holdings LLC.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by reporting millions of dollars in revenue that were never realized, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendant-corporate officers is vacated where: 1) Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act provided the SEC with a cause of action not only against Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers who did not file the required certifications, but also against CEOs and CFOs who certified false or misleading statements; and 2) the disgorgement remedy authorized under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied regardless of whether a restatement was caused by the personal misconduct of an issuer's CEO and CFO or by other issuer misconduct.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.

(NY Supreme Court) - 528980

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated. A district court conclusion that executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees was unlawful was in error. The district court lacked jurisdiction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's dismissal of claims for interference and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act in the case of a man reprimanded for swearing, quoting the bible, and generally being abrasive in colleague interactions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The dismissal of a suit alleging that protracted employment termination proceedings violated the substantive due process rights of a Sheriff's Office employee following their DUI arrest was proper because it did not meet the high standard for making out substantive due process claims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit alleging unequal pay due to gender discrimination and retaliation that lost on all counts at jury trial was affirmed. The jury instructions and verdict forms did not prejudice the case.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissal of a workplace harassment suit was affirmed because after harassment was reported the company swiftly investigated and fired the harasser. No evidence was presented to support allegations of harassment in the victim's subsequent dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

(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 that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the federal government could not block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. The government had sued to enjoin the vertical merger on the basis that it would have anticompetitive effects. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the government's evidence was insufficient, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Palin appeals the dismissal of her defamation complaint against The New York Times for failure to state a claim. Finding the district court erred in relying on facts outside the proceedings, the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a complaint brought by a company formed by a hairdresser who attempted to take advantage of changes in the law relating to whether cancelled companies can pursue litigation rather than litigate in a forthcoming manner, creating a situation where they were technically entitled to proceed but allowing them to do so would be unfair.

(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 consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an action by a private energy company against the utility companies because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act does not provide a private right of action against utility companies and affirming the denial of a motion for additional relief against various Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities officials because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the judgment and remanding the case of a woman whose home had a distressing electric charge, particularly in the shower, as the result of a power plant next door because the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence relating to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners and tenants and that the admission of that evidence was prejudicial.

(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 Second Circuit) - Held that a group of electrical power generators and related trade groups could not proceed with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York Public Service Commission's Zero Emissions Credit program, which subsidizes qualifying nuclear power plants by creating state‐issued clean-energy credits. Affirmed a dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit between Taiwanese and Japanese companies whose contract had nothing at all to do with California, but still named it as the forum for the resolution of disputes, because it was not an abuse of discretion when the court determined that suitable alternative forums exist and California had no interest in the suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating a decision by the US Court of International Trade affirming a US Department of Commerce determination that certain imported oil country tubular goods (OCTG) fabricated as unfinished OCTG in China and finished in other countries were not subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders covering OCTG imported from China because the Trade Court improperly proscribed the use of the substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that a maritime lien had been extinguished by laches in a case where a Cypriot fuel supplier sought to enforce its lien against a Maltese company's vessel. In affirming the lower court's finding that the lien was barred by laches, the Second Circuit also recognized that federal courts have jurisdiction to declare a maritime lien unenforceable, even where the vessel is not present in the district, so long as its owner consents to adjudication of rights in the lien and the court also found no need for abstention on the basis of international comity, even though an in-rem proceeding was pending in Panama regarding the same lien.

(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 suit involving trade dress and copyright infringement claims, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act while operating its website.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(United States Third Circuit) - In this action alleging that defendants infringed upon plaintiff's trade dress in violation of the Lanham Act and unjustly enriched themselves by copying plaintiff's business, dismissal of plaintiff's trade dress and unjust enrichment claims and subsequent award of attorneys' fees to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to the trade dress and unjust enrichment claims, where plaintiff failed to adequately explain what "dress" it sought to protect, and plaintiff did not plead with sufficient particularity in what manner defendants had been unjustly enriched; and 2) vacated and remanded as to the award of attorneys' fees, where the award of reasonable fees would have been appropriate only to the extent that this was an "exceptional" case under section 35(a) of the Lanham Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the ruling that certain patent claims for pharmaceutical formulations, intranasal administration devices or aqueous solutions of zolmitripatan are not valid. The court found that defendant failed to prove that the claims at issue would have been obvious over the prior art.