(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree based on a prior conviction for assault in the first degree is vacated and remanded for resentencing. The Court held that the revocation of probation under Penal Code section 60.01 is not the analogue of an annulment of a sentence and concluded that the original sentencing date controls for the purpose of determining the eligible look-back period in Penal Law section 70.04 for prior conviction sentencing.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, brought by plaintiff insurance companies seeking declaratory relief, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where Insurance Law section 5102 does not require no-fault insurance carriers to pay a facility fee to reimburse New York State-accredited office-based surgery centers for the use of their facilities and related support services.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendants ABC News, a hospital, and attending physician for the nonconsensual filming and subsequent broadcast of decedent's treatment and death at the hospital, the Appellative Division's order is modified and affirmed where: 1) the broadcasting of the footage as part of a documentary series about medical trauma was not so extreme and outrageous as to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; but 2) plaintiffs have stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court held that New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings and answered the Second Circuit's question in the negative.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving helmets worn by professional football players the manufacturers of the helmets were being sued by multiple parties, so the manufacturer sued their insurers for indemnity. The insurers wanted to continue in extended discovery and demanded logs of documents withheld during prior discovery, but the court held that a stay of discover is appropriate, while the manufacturer must also provide privilege logs, reversing the trial court's decision as to the stay and affirming its order as to the privilege logs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a government contractor's claim for an equitable adjustment arising out of its fixed price indefinite delivery contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), the Court of Federal Claims' denial of the claim is reversed where: 1) the Claims Court's findings that DRMS did not inadequately or negligently prepare its estimates and that Agility did not rely on those estimates are clearly erroneous; and 2) Plaintiff’s receipt of scrap sales and the parties' agreement to clause H.19 do not preclude plaintiff from recovering under this claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the petition for mandamus by an insurer that had paid millions on an Employee Theft Insurance policy when the insured company was found to have engaged in corrupt activities such as obtaining bribes and kickbacks from subcontractors to a government contract it held because, even if they had overcome various procedural obstacles, the company's criminal conduct and, by extension, that of the insurer, precluded them from obtaining restitution from an implicated employee, but vacating and remanding an order dismissing the insurer's petition in the employee's forfeiture proceeding because the district court failed to determine whether the company's unclean hands kept it from an equitable remedy.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because the Contract Disputes Act did not provide jurisdiction in a case involving a contract with the Army to establish and operate supply chain during Iraq's reconstruction and that the Board lacked jurisdiction under its charter and partially dismissing because the decision was not made pursuant under the CDA, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed, in large part, an attorney fee award in a False Claims Act action that had been resolved by settlement. After the defendant agreed to settle the case, the plaintiff (qui tam relator) was entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees as a prevailing party. He appealed arguing that the district court's fee award was too low. The Third Circuit rejected his arguments and affirmed the award except in one narrow respect: on remand the trial court must decide how much to award him in fees for the time spent litigating his fee petition.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction business that ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions was subject to withdrawal liability under ERISA's Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a labor union pension fund.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a woman's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue related to whether her bipolar disorder and other conditions limited her concentration, persistence and pace. Vacated and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the denial of a man's application for unemployment insurance benefits. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The denial by an administrative law judge of an individual's application for disability benefits based on mental health impairments and its subsequent affirmation by the district court were vacated because the ALJ didn't adequately account for the person's difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace in the workplace.

(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.

(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.

This phishing scammer decided to skip the normal mumbo jumbo and just send the phishing link.

Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

The most confusing Paypal phishing scam ever!

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Stay of the district court order granting Plaintiffs injunction is not warranted. Plaintiffs sued Defendants to enjoining them from reprogramming funds from the Department of Defense toward building a barrier along our country’s southern border. The appeals court concluded that Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood that they will prevail in this litigation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate is denied. Remanded to consider restitution. Los Angeles County filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas for a natural gas leak that continued for months and caused damage to residents. The criminal charges were resolved by a plea agreement, where a no contest plea was entered to the charge of failure to immediately report gas leak. Plaintiffs sought to set aside plea agreement and seek restitution under the California Constitution. The appeals court held that victims do not have a right to appeal a criminal case judgment, but they do have a right to restitution. However, restitution is only available for crimes where there is an actual conviction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(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 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 Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case involving a dispute over an unwritten and allegedly exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff and Hormel Foods Corp. under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act (Law 75), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 sections 278-278e, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where plaintiff's exclusivity claim as presented is time-barred; and 2) reversed in part where the statute of limitations bar to recovery extends to plaintiff's Costco-related claim as well.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), brought by growers who sold their perishable agricultural products on credit to a distributor, thereby making the distributor a trustee over a PACA trust holding the perishable products and any resulting proceeds for the growers as PACA-trust beneficiaries, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where pursuant to Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 128 (9th Cir.2001), a commercially reasonable factoring agreement removes accounts receivable from the PACA trust without a trustee's breach of trust, thus defeating the growers' claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a lawsuit alleging that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing plaintiffs' rulemaking petitions, which requested that each agency promulgate regulations that would require all egg cartons to identify the conditions in which the egg-laying hens were kept during production, the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal agencies is affirmed where: 1) the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked authority to promulgate plaintiffs' proposed labeling regulations for shell eggs: 2) the Agricultural Marketing Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs’ rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to promulgate mandatory labeling requirements for shell eggs; 3) the Federal Trade Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition; and 4) the Food and Drug Administration barely met its low burden to clearly indicate that it considered the potential problem identified in plaintiffs' petition, and provide a reasonable explanation for not initiating rulemaking.

(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) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A suit arising from the denial of a petition for declaration of citizenship because the applicant failed to demonstrate that they resided in the jurisdiction where they applied was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Administrative Procedures Act provides an adequate remedy.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an SEC enforcement action arising from the activities of a company described as a "sham incubator for startup companies", summary judgment ruling against defendant is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant was an underwriter under section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, and therefore not exempt from the the Act's registration requirements; 2) it did not err in ordering that defendant disgorge all profits, with interest, he obtained from certain transactions; but 3) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the imposition of certain civil sanctions.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In response to four certified questions from a district court relating to Delaware's Escheat Statute, the Supreme Court of Delaware finds: 1) the new definition of "period of dormancy" for stocks in 12 Del. C. section 1198(9) does not apply retroactively in civil actions involving stocks that were escheated prior to June 30, 2008; 2) common law or statutory causes of actions against parties that are involved in an escheat transaction (other than the State of Delaware) are not superseded by the Escheat Statute. Causes of action for negligence, conversion, and "failure to register" might be available if adequately pleaded, but the court is unable to opine on the question of whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or "some other cause of action" is viable against defendants; 3) only the immunity granted by 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) applies in this case involving escheatment of stock; and 4) "Good faith" under 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) is an affirmative defense, the substantive elements of which must be pleaded and proved by the defendant that claims immunity.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a company's suit under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) to vacate or modify the arbitration award against it, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the union is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the CBA in a way that allowed the company to be found liable for a breach; 2) the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority to decide a representational issue in this case because the arbitrator's successor decision was permissible in furtherance of his interpretation of the CBA; 3) the award's remedy does not violate public policy; and 4) the arbitrator did not dispense his own brand of industrial justice.

(United States First Circuit) - In this case, plaintiff-software-company hired defendant-bank to assist it in finding an acquisition partner. The acquisition partner later was found to have fraudulently overstated its earnings, and bankruptcy ensued for the merged company, after which the present litigation followed, alleging various common-law claims including gross negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Mass. Ben. Laws ch. 93A. Judgment finding defendant not liable on all claims is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's conduct, even if sloppy and unforthcoming, was not unfair or deceptive, the factual findings are supported by the record, and the court correctly applied the ch. 93A legal standard to those findings; and 2) there were no other errors, and even if there were, those errors were harmless.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger, and in light of Delaware Supreme Court's answer to a certified question that plaintiff was not required to bring its breach of contract claim as a derivative action, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor defendant is vacated where plaintiff is not barred from pursuing its claim directly.

Inspired By The Events Of Los Angeles Summer 1969 Emotional Debris Introduces 2 Catchy Rock Records In Line With Quentin Tarantino's New Epic 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'