(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(UT Court of Appeals) - No. 20180488-CA

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment dismissing plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings claim against government when his license to practice law was revoked by the Tenth Circuit and reciprocally by the State of Colorado, is affirmed, where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction over plaintiff's alleged violations of his rights in the absence of a money-mandating statute providing for compensation for such government action as required for a claim under the Tucker Act; and 2) because the revocation actions became final no later than 1999, the suit was barred by the six year statute of limitations of the Tucker Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment denying plaintiff's motion to execute a monetary judgment entered, as a sanction for plaintiff's attorney misconduct, is vacated and remanded, where although the district court had more than an adequate basis to sanction plaintiff's counsel and accorded the required procedural safeguards, further findings are needed to support a sanction that falls entirely on the clients rather than principally on the lawyer.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's order reciprocally suspending defendant-attorney from the practice of law before that court based on an order of the Connecticut Superior Court, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant received adequate notice of the charges; 2) defendant's other due process challenges to the state court proceedings are either meritless or, at most, concern harmless error; and 3) defendant also has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a "substantial infirmity in the proof" supporting the state court disciplinary order.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment of the Committee on Grievances suspending petitioner-attorney from practicing law in the Southern District of New York for a period of seven years is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the committee's conclusion that petitioner violation the New York Code of Professional Responsibility; 2) the Committee acted well within its informed discretion in ordering a seven-year suspension, notwithstanding the lack of directly analogous precedent, based on its conclusion that petitioner's conduct was sui generis.

(United States Second Circuit) - The order of the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, directing that the subject attorney's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in its court is affirmed, where: 1) the record supports a determination that the attorney knowingly withdrew client funds without permission or authority and used said funds for his own personal purposes; and 2) disbarment was within the range of appropriate punishments.

(United States Second Circuit) - In this civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant volunteer ambulance corps and several of its directors violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by levying disciplinary charges against her without a hearing, summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiff's federal constitutional claims is affirmed, where: 1) emergency medical care and general ambulance services are not "traditionally exclusive public functions"; 2) extensive State regulation and oversight does not therefore entwine defendant with the State; and 3) defendant's conduct does not amount to state action.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, in an underlying federal action, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved for sanctions against appellant Dunn. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part. Respondent Committee of Professional Standards thereafter filed a petition alleging that Dunn had "engaged in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer" in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The basis of the complaint was essentially the text of the Magistrate's sanctions opinion. Judgment of the Appellate Division finding Dunn guilty of the charged misconduct and finding that collateral estoppel applied to the Magistrate's sanctions order is reversed and the matter is remitted, where: 1) while the issue of whether Dunn had made false statements in her written declaration, it was not the focus of the hearing on the underlying motion for sanctions; and 2) the cursory nature of the sanctions proceedings itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the case.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.

(United States Third Circuit) - Conviction and sentencing of defendant for principally violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 18 U.S.C. section 371, for marketing a software program to Iranian actors and forming agreements with Iranian entities to provide technology to facilitate the construction of multiple chemical plants, are upheld where: 1) district court properly held that IEEPA does not violate the nondelegation doctrine; and 2) defendant's actions that occurred more than five years prior to the indictment were part of a continuing course of conduct that extended into the limitations period and contributed to the charged conspiracy, such that they were not barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its former employee for unauthorized access and misuse of a computer system and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Connecticut laws, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where the foreign defendant's use of a computer in Connecticut satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of both the Connecticut long-arm statute and due process.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff finding that defendant had misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets regarding its digital stamping technology (DST), which was disclosed to defendant during negotiations pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreement, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff did not fail to adequately identify its trade secrets; 2) the trial court did not err in its identification of the misappropriated trade secrets; 3) ideas are protectable as trade secrets; 4) design concepts underlying plaintiff's DST constitute protectable "information"; 5) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff's DST design concepts had independent economic value and the finding that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets; 6) the trial court properly based its damages award on the reasonable royalty measure of damages, and did not err in awarding prejudgment interest; and 7) defendant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in basing its fee award on local hourly rates or shown the hourly rates employed by the trial court were unreasonable.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Ruling of the International Trade Commission that respondent-intervenor uPI violated the Consent Order as to the imports known as "formerly accused products" is affirmed, the modified penalty is affirmed, and the ruling of no violation as to the post-Consent Order products is reversed, where: 1) substantial evidence does not support the Commission's conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently developed; and 2) the United States sale or importation of downstream products, which incorporate uPI's formerly accused upstream products and infringe the '190 patent, constitutes a violation of the Consent Order's knowingly aiding or abetting provision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Award of attorney fees to defendant in an underlying action for misappropriation of trade secret by seeking to hire away plaintiff's employees, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's findings are free of procedural error; 2) the finding of plaintiff's bad faith is amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor, which they are entitled to do under California state law; and 3) defendant prevailed when plaintiff dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trademark secrets and employment case arising out of the formation of defendant uPI Semiconductors by employees of plaintiff Richtek, the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is reversed where the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the substantive allegations contained in two 2007 court complaints filed in Taiwan to resolve factual disputes in the case.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded for new trial. Plaintiff was injured when she swerved and crashed to avoid a flying mattress. The jury found for the Defendant. The appeals court found that that the jury was given incorrect jury instructions on negligence per se and reversed the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment for nonsuit. Plaintiff, a juvenile, sued Department of Children and Family Services for sexual abuse while she was in foster care. Trial court granted nonsuit because Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from criminal actions of third parties. Appeals court affirmed, but modified cost award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff is an indigent, self-represented prison inmate pursuing a medical malpractice claim. The trial count denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The appeals court directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings on Plaintiff’s right of access to the courts and right to appointment of counsel and to vacate the order granting the motion for summary judgment.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(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 DC Circuit) - Revived Palestinian nationals' claims that pro-Israeli Americans engaged in a civil conspiracy to expel all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by funneling millions of dollars to Jewish settlements there. The defendants contended that the case raised nonjusticiable political questions and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Disagreeing, the D.C. Circuit reversed a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the district court should not have sua sponte raised a statute of limitations defense to defeat a terrorism lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had failed to make an appearance in the case. The suit alleged that Iran was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that killed or injured the plaintiffs' family members. Vacated a dismissal.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(United States First Circuit) - In another appeal in a protracted employment dispute between two former colleagues in which plaintiff sought payment of his promised wages and loan money, the District Court's decision to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to hold defendant and related entities liable for the judgment originally entered against defendant's company only is affirmed where the District Court did not plainly err in joining related entities as alter egos of defendant's company and holding them liable for the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

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

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a county government's insurers had a duty to defend a civil rights lawsuit relating to the murder convictions of three innocent men who were later exonerated. The county contended that the insurance policies were triggered even though the wrongful acts occurred before the policy period. Affirmed that there was a duty to defend.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(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.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.