(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed the certification of a class in a lawsuit alleging that a restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its parking lots were difficult to ambulate in a wheelchair. The 500-location restaurant chain contended that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy some of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Agreeing, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to reconsider if a class should be certified.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal, on res judicata grounds, of a proposed wage-and-hour class action. While the plaintiff conceded that she was subject to a state class-action settlement that released all claims arising from the same set of allegations upon which her Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit was based, she nonetheless contended that her FLSA action should be allowed to proceed. Agreeing with the trial court, the Ninth Circuit held that res judicata applied.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the district court erred in remanding a class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act's local-controversy exception. The plaintiff argued that her wage-hour class action against a fast-food chain belonged in state court because more than two-thirds of the putative class members were California citizens. Unconvinced, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for additional discovery regarding how many former employees had moved to other states, among other things.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in an action alleging wage and hour violations, finding substantial evidence that individual questions would predominate and also that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated an award of attorney fees but otherwise affirmed the district court's approval of a class action settlement resolving claims that an online retailer enrolled consumers in a membership rewards program without their consent and mishandled their billing information. Held that the district court should not have counted the full face value of $20 coupons provided to class members when it performed the percentage-of-recovery and lodestar calculations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a proposed class action alleging that a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending doctors unsolicited fax advertisements. The company attempted to moot the case by paying the named plaintiff's claim in full. Vacated a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that employees who filed a proposed wage-hour class action were not entitled to intervene in an earlier, similar action that was being settled. Affirmed the denial of both mandatory and permissive intervention.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in two lawsuits that were brought by unwilling recipients of faxed advertising messages. The recipients alleged that the fax advertisements violated the FCC's Solicited Fax Rule. Found no abuse of discretion in denying class certification in both cases, which were consolidated for appeal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Golden Gate Bridge toll-collecting system belonged in state court. Affirmed the remand of the case to state court after it was removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. The suit principally alleged unlawful collection of personal data.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in a wage-and-hour case involving property inspectors in the insurance industry. The inspectors proposed to establish liability and damages using a method of anonymously surveying class members, but the trial court found flaws with the plan, and its decision to deny class certification was upheld on appeal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a state law fraud lawsuit against an investment adviser was precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The statute's definition of a "covered class action" includes any class action brought by a named plaintiff on a representative basis, regardless of the proposed class size. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court did not adequately explain its reason for rescinding certification of a class in a business dispute between numerous used-car dealerships and a financing company. Vacated the class certification ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in denying class certification to truck drivers bringing wage and hour claims against their employer. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that errors were made in analyzing whether predominantly common issues existed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in dismissing a proposed wage-hour class action on statute of limitations grounds. The issue involved the so-called death knell doctrine. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in an opinion after transfer from the California Supreme Court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a debt collector could cure its failure to use a minimum type-size in consumer collection letters. However, this did not justify the dismissal of the entire class action complaint here. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a car purchaser did not raise a triable issue that a dealership failed to provide customers promised add-ons. Also addressed an issue under the Class Action Fairness Act relating to removal jurisdiction. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an engineering company could not proceed with a class action lawsuit alleging that its former concrete supplier unlawfully recorded cellular phone users' calls without their consent. Affirmed an order decertifying the class on the ground that the class representative lacked individual standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's refusal to compel arbitration was upheld, as was their refusal of several motions by Rent-A-Center attempting to avoid class action against them because a contract to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California law.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The district court improperly dismissed a lawsuit in which a woman's credit card number and expiration date were printed on a receipt for lack of standing. The risk of identity theft was sufficient injury to support standing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a class action against Defendant alleging Insurance Code violations and unfair business practices for the insurance rates Defendant charged in its car rental business. The trial court found no illegal or fraudulent business practice or any economic injury. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The panel held that the defendants’ jurisdictional allegations, which provided a short and plain statement of the parties’ citizenship based on information and belief, satisfied the defendants’ burden of pleading minimal diversity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

Rocking Horse Music Club Presents The Music Of Anthony Phillips Feat. Guest Appearances By Steve Hackett, John Hackett, Nick Magnus, Kate St. John, John Helliwell & Others.

Respecting The Environment And A More Sustainable Future, Against Waste And The Use Of Plastic, DeFox Records Will Launch A Special Limited Edition Of Card Disk On The Market.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that baseball stadium security guards did not need to submit their wage claims to arbitration. The issue involved whether the claims turned on the meaning of their collective-bargaining agreement. Answering no, the California Supreme Court held that the security guards could proceed in state court.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a man's capital murder conviction for killing a woman and her daughter.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreting the state's anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court addressed whether the commercial nature of a defendant's speech is relevant in determining whether that speech merits protection. Reversing, the high court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable here to a dispute between two companies over what one said about the other's business practices.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Plaintiff filed suit for employment discrimination, retaliation and defamation. Defendant filed an anti—SLAPP motion, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The Supreme court held that the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable to the claims of discrimination and retaliation, but not to the defamation cause of action because it was not made in connection with any issue of public significance.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

Broadcasting From Piazza D'Armi In Valletta, Malta

Rock On Neon Radio Is A Live365 Radio Station. The Station's Motto Is “some That You Recognize, Some That You've Hardly Even Heard Of” Which Is A Quote From The Song Celluloid Heroes By The Kinks.

"Whiskey And Cigarettes" Country Radio Show, In Association With The European Academy Of Country Music (EACM) Has Announced Their Top 30 Of 2018 Year-end Chart. The Show Is Syndicated On More Than 25

New Podcast Concept Station "Elevate Radio" To Help Podcasters And Musicians

(IN Court of Appeals) - Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PL-141

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer breached its contractual agreement with a distributor in the medical-supply industry. Affirmed a bench trial judgment, in a case involving distribution rights to a special type of hospital bed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a dispute between a city and an engineering firm belonged in state court rather than federal court. Affirmed a remand order based on language in the parties' venue selection agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissed a case involving an exclusive sale agreement for failure to state a claim because the contract was not in force at the time of the alleged breach and the district court did not misinterpret the contract's automatic renewal clause.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's refusal to compel arbitration was upheld, as was their refusal of several motions by Rent-A-Center attempting to avoid class action against them because a contract to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California law.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A franchise's preliminary injunction against a franchisee operating a competing company was upheld in a lawsuit over the franchisee's alleged violation of franchise agreements. The district court should have included more detail regarding the likelihood of success on the merits by the movant, but there was enough to establish that the order wasn't an abuse of discretion.

(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.