(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees following the settlement of litigation challenging California's attempt to reduce the rate of Medi-Cal reimbursement for healthcare providers by 10 percent. Remanded for further proceedings on the attorney fee request.

(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.

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

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.

Phishing scammers need a little help scamming you!

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

Mr Larry Smith's rely to our questions.

From payroll to fax to a homicide suspect. Where do these spammers get their inspiration from?

IRMGF (Inspiration Mining Corporation) pump and dump stock spam

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Reversed the district court's ruling which had denied immunity to North Carolina state agencies and officials which were sued by a videographer alleging that they violated his copyrights by publishing his video footage of an 18th-century shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Plaintiff had obtained the rights to create the footage through a permit issued by North Carolina to the ship's salvors. Disagreeing with the district court's rulings on a motion to dismiss, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the defendant agencies and officials were protected from the lawsuit by sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and/or legislative immunity.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(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.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that energy companies emerging from bankruptcy did not have to pay certain creditors a contractual make-whole amount, even though the companies were now solvent due to a rise in commodity prices. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising from a leak in an underground fuel storage tank, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it did not owe coverage because the insured had breached the Cooperation Clause in its policy, among other things.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the bankruptcy proceeding of a distributor of bulk petroleum products, held that a consignor's unperfected security interest in fuel and monetary proceeds was subordinate to the trustee's interest. Affirmed the judgment below.

(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 an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which plaintiff challenged, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which forbids manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products, the district court's summary judgment to agency-defendant is reversed where plaintiff, a middleman involved in the advertising industry, had standing to challenge section 25503, because the Supreme Court's opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), requires heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful products, rather than the intermediate scrutiny previously applied to section 25503 by the Ninth Circuit in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir.1986).

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal of denial of Proposition 47 petition for resentencing of felony convictions for theft from an elder and receiving stolen property, Pen. Code sections 368(d), 496(a), the denial of the petition is reversed and remanded solely as to counts 12, 14, and 15, where: 1) the court did not state its reasoning for concluding the crimes alleged in those counts were not eligible for resentencing; and 2) the record does not support the trial court's ineligibility finding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's affirmation of the US Department of Commerce's findings following a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India.

(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.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant was allegedly made a beneficiary of a trust by handwritten interlineations by the original settlor and trustee of a certain trust. Plaintiff, the successor trustee, moved for summary judgment asserting the interlineations were not valid. The appeals court concluded that valid amendments must be by written instrument, signed by the settlor, and delivered to the trustee. The interlineations were never signed, so the trust was not effectively amended.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a statutory appraisal action arising from an acquisition by merger, an order modifying the appraisal opinion is reversed where the dispute had become moot by operation of a settlement agreement, and the purported modification of the appraisal opinion therefore had no legal effect.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.

(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 Second Circuit) - In a RICO action alleging injury arising from the activities of an international criminal enterprise, or more specifically, "a massive racketeering scheme to take over a substantial portion of the Russian oil industry", dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims was properly one of whether the complaint adequately stated a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff's claims were barred.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a RICO action alleging various injuries to plaintiff arising from the activities of defendants' alleged international criminal enterprise, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims is properly one of whether the complaint adequately states a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff’s claims are barred.

ProgStock Festival Was Founded To Give Artists And Fans In The Genre Of Progressive Rock A Place To Play

Lemon Slice Records Has Released Speakeasy, The New Album By Luke & The Belleville, A Masterly Integration Between The Swing Of The 1930s And The Most Modern Rhythms And Sounds Of Electronic Music.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived claims that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's woefully inadequate cybersecurity practices enabled hackers to steal personal data about millions of past and present federal employees. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and others arising out of a 2014 cyberattack.

(California Court of Appeal) - Order denying resentencing vacated. Defendant petitioned for resentencing of his possession of marijuana conviction based on Proposition 64’s reduction or elimination of criminal penalties for various marijuana offenses. Court held that that even though Defendant was convicted of a felony accessory that was not specifically mentioned in the statute, he still would be eligible for resentencing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded for determination whether Defendant should be granted diversion under Penal Code sec. 1001.36. Defendant argued that there should have been a pretrial mental health diversion that should retroactively apply to him. Trial court rejected argument, appeals court reversed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant was convicted in 1995 of shoplifting $18 worth of beer. In 2014, Proposition 47 was passed that allowed prior felony charges to be re-characterized as misdemeanors, Defendant filed a petition to make that request. The trial court denied the petition. The appeals court reversed stating that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Remand for sentencing. Judgment affirmed. The appeals court directed the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding a determination to run sentences concurrently or not and to consider dismissing sentence enhancements based on Senate Bills 620 and 1393.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory. Defendant challenged his convictions in part based on Senate Bill 1437 that amended the felony-murder rule. The appeals court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief, but that relief could be available to other defendants by petitioning their trial courts.