(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that mediation costs fall within the category of costs that may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed an award to the prevailing party in this construction dispute.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a subcontractor could not proceed with its lawsuit against a general contractor seeking payment for work on a project to build public schools. The subcontractor did not properly comply with the notice requirements of the Louisiana Public Works Act.

(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.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an administrative ruling that terminated the Supplemental Security Income benefits of an individual who had received them since childhood for an intellectual disorder. The plaintiff disputed the medical evidence that the Social Security Administration relied on in concluding that he was no longer disabled after he turned age 18. Finding merit in his arguments, the First Circuit held that the record was insufficient to conclude he was no longer disabled.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that an individual who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was not entitled to them because he was not disabled by bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits had no absolute right to pose questions to a government-employed medical consultant who reviewed his medical file and assessed his physical limitations. Instead, the right to such questioning depends on a case-by-case assessment of the need for cross-examination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a man with a back injury, rejecting his contention that the ALJ improperly discounted his treating physician's opinion and discredited his own testimony. Affirmed the district court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a benefit applicant's claim that he was entitled to Social Security disability based on a degenerative back condition. Held that the administrative law judge failed to support her decision to discount the treating neurosurgeon's opinion. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration committed an error in denying disability benefits to a former hair stylist suffering from a host of medical problems, including degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia. The ALJ should have acquired a medical expert to review a consequential MRI report. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Social Security Act's 25 percent cap on attorney fees applies only to fees for court representation. The lower court erroneously applied the cap to the aggregate fees awarded for representation before both the agency and the court. Justice Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split regarding the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation. The decision relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a man's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with whether he could perform his former job as a school bus monitor. Vacated the district court's judgment and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the Social Security Administration's decision that an applicant was not entitled to disability insurance benefits because she was not disabled. Affirmed the district court's decision.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a disabled child was not entitled to retroactive social security disability payments for the first year of his life, before his mother applied for assistance. Also held that social security laws may constitutionally bar benefits before application.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Plaintiff received over-payment of Social Security disability payments and the SSA sought to recoup the over-payment. Plaintiff claimed that the SSA collected the over-payment before considering plaintiff's waiver request. Plaintiff also filed for bankruptcy and lodged an adversarial proceeding against the SSA which the bankruptcy court dismissed. The issue for the Fifth circuit was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The Fifth circuit ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction and remanded to the bankruptcy court.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(MD Court of Appeals) - No. 19, Sept. Term, 2019

Phishing scammers need a little help scamming you!

You have been sent a MALICIOUS file!

Russian phishing scammers pretending to be the UPS, sending you a UPS Tracking number through FilesTube. Confused? Well we are!

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.

BARR. Katie Richardson wants you to contact DR HILARRY NDUBEM. Do not contact any of these swindlers... ever!

Quick an easy loans... um... scams.

The Canadian Pharmacy Spammers are at it again, or should we say still at it again.

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

IRMGF (Inspiration Mining Corporation) pump and dump stock spam

(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) - Affirmed a mootness ruling in a dispute between two neighbors over the proposed demolition of a Laguna Beach house and its replacement with a new three-story residence. The case involved the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Commission rules.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed sanctions imposed against a defense attorney for filing a frivolous motion seeking prevailing party attorney fees. Held that it was baseless for the attorney to argue that his client was the prevailing party under the Copyright Act, in a case where his client had agreed to pay a monetary settlement to resolve a copyright infringement claim.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a textile company's copyright infringement claims accusing certain competitors of illegally copying its floral lace designs. Reversed dismissals.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by operators of recycling centers where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their California Redemption Value, against companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, contending that defendants knowingly and "falsely" label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with "CA CRV," "California Redemption Value," or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California, and alleging common law tort claims against defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, and breach of express warranty, the trial court's judgment of dismissal is affirmed where the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded by a California court because it would violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the federal Constitution.