(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a California family court lacked jurisdiction to modify a North Carolina child custody and child support order. Reversed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order requiring a woman to pay $10,000 in sanctions to her ex-husband in a marital dissolution proceeding.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, upheld a ruling that a premarital agreement was enforceable and waived spousal support to either party. The parties had retained a private judge to resolve the issue.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, addressed whether a doctor appointed by the court to prepare a child custody evaluation report must repay all of the fees the parties had paid him pursuant to his appointment. Finding his report deficient, the trial judge had given it no weight.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the issuance of a mutual restraining order against a husband. He was the one who had petitioned for the domestic violence restraining order, and his wife had not filed a separate request for one.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant is a divorced spouse who holds an interest in property that Plaintiff obtained a judgment lien against the other spouse’s interest. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s interest was subordinate to Plaintiff’s interest. The trial court held that Defendant’s interest vested upon the entry of the judgment of divorce and that Plaintiff could execute only against the other spouse’s interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order imposing sanctions as to Trigger and reversed as to Taeb. Defendant Taeb and his attorney Trigger appealed order for sanctions for failure to appear for trial. Sanctions were based on Trigger’s misrepresentation to the court that she was ready for trial, when in fact she was not.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by non-citizen religious workers and their employers challenging a Justice Department regulation governing the process by which religious workers can apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1255(a), judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the regulation does not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of religion and therefore does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; 2) the regulation does not violate Equal Protection principles because it does not target any religious group, but rather, the regulation affects all members of the fourth-preference visa category who have been admitted on employment-based visas; and 3) there is no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights because the regulation does not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an unlawful detainer action between two non-profit religious organizations, trial court's order compelling defendant's pastor, who was not a party to the action, to sign the written settlement agreement in his individual capacity, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the parties' oral settlement agreement did not require the pastor to release any personal claims against the plaintiff or sign a written agreement purportedly conforming to the oral settlement in his individual capacity; and 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the pastor.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the Salvation Army could not proceed with her claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, because Title VII's religious organization exemption barred the claims. Also, it did not matter here that the Salvation Army had failed to timely raise the defense. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a former on-air radio personality's action for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related employment claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to employer-defendant is reversed where material issues of fact exist regarding each of plaintiff's claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an amended opinion involving a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded for retrial. Defendant killed a grizzly bear that was harassing his horses in Montana and was convicted of violating the Endangered Species Act. The 9th Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard when it should have applied a subjective belief standard as to the defendant's claim of self-defense.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a movie studio breached its collective-bargaining agreement with musicians who score motion pictures. The musicians' labor union contended that the movie studio breached the labor agreement by having the film Same Kind of Different As Me scored in Slovakia, rather than hiring union musicians in the U.S. and Canada. Finding genuine disputes of material fact, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the movie studio and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark suit brought by a provider of healthcare services against a provider of digital health-related content, the District Court's injunction which prohibited defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area, but placed no restriction on defendant's use of its marks on the Internet or outside plaintiff's service area, is affirmed but remanded for expansion of the injunction's scope, where the current limitations placed on defendant were based on an incorrect standard and fail to give plaintiff and the public adequate protection from likely confusion.

(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark infringement dispute between software companies over several trademarks containing the word 'collective,' the District Court's granted summary judgment to Cross Commerce Media on virtually all points in dispute and awarded attorney's fees under the Lanham Act are reversed in part where: 1) the unregistered mark 'collective' is suggestive, not descriptive; 2) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI used the unregistered mark 'collective' in commerce before CCM introduced its allegedly infringing marks; 3) the district court prematurely granted summary judgment as to CI's counterclaim for infringement of the registered marks, an action that neither party requested and the district court did not explain; and 4) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI abandoned its registered marks 'Collective Network' and 'Collective Video.' Award of attorney fees is vacated.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition filed by Adidas, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's final judgment cancelling a Church's trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before registering them, on the grounds of the Church's de minimus sale of two marked hats to an out-of-state reside, is reversed where: 1) the Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; and 2) the Church's sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming that a 1999 amendment to trademark statutes did not eliminate the plaintiff's requirement that they establish wilfulness to justify the award of defendant's profits in a trademark infringement case, but reversing the holding that the defendant's mark was not likely to cause confusion and remanding for inquiry into intent.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that New York law allows for derivative litigation rights in a suit on Lanham Act claims and a motion for preliminary injunction under the first-filed rule, but vacating the dismissal of the complaint and injunction motion in favor of a first-filed Georgia action because the Georgia suit was transferred to New York, so the reasoning behind the first-filed ruling no longer pertains, and affirming the district court's award of costs, including attorney fees incurred in the Georgia state action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision cancelling registration of plaintiff’s trademark for a green tea product due to the likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registered mark.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded for recalculation of an attorney fee award in a trademark infringement action, in which one nonprofit organization accused another of stealing its logo. Both organizations endorse political candidates.

(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 Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private citizen cannot sue one State in the courts of another. Overruled Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which had held that a State may grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity as it chooses. The plaintiff here sought to bring a tort suit against a California state agency in Nevada state court. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution barred the suit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Upheld an Indiana law relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers. The Seventh Circuit had struck down the law, which altered the manner in which abortion providers may dispose of fetal remains; for instance, the law prevents incineration of fetal remains along with surgical byproducts. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a per curiam decision that the law passes rational basis review. Only two justices dissented.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case alleging racial gerrymandering, held that the Virginia House of Delegates lacked standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia's 2010 redistricting plan. As a single chamber of a bicameral legislature, the House had no standing to appeal a three-judge federal district court's redistricting ruling separately from the State of which it is a part. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. Defendants sought disclosure, through a FOIA request, of names and addresses of retail stores who participated in the national food stamp program. Plaintiff refused to provide that information stating that substantive competitive harm would be caused. The district court disagreed with plaintiff and ordered disclosure. The US Supreme Court reversed and held that data provided under an assurance of privacy was an exemption to a FOIA request.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed to allow withdrawal of guilty pleas. A new law was passed, Pen. Code Sec. 1473.7, that allowed a conviction to be vacated when there was no meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The court held that there did not have to be proof of actual ineffective assistance of counsel, but merely a preponderance of the evidence.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. An in absentia order of removal could not be overturned because it was not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational it was arbitrary.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Plaintiff petitioned for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision for removal based on a judgment for Contempt of Court for violating a restraining order.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Aside from a few wild guesses, Izuku had no idea how this had happened. But here he was, about to bear All Might's child, and all he could think to blame it on was a jar of rice.

Najnowsze wiadomości - TVN24 Little Richard, znany między innymi z przeboju "Tutti Frutti", zmarł w sobotę w wieku 87 lat - poinformował na swojej stronie internetowej magazyn "Rolling Stone". Piosenkarz, pianista i pastor jest uważany za jednego z pionierów rock and rolla. https://ift.tt/37OsBj9

https://t.co/rl92rXlZSQ

RT @IsaacScher__: NEW: Half of all Brooklynites are white, but 97.5% of the borough's social distancing arrests were of people of color.

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 85

RT @mrbromwich: I have been in and around DOJ since 1983. I have never seen a case dropped after someone has pled guilty and the underlying facts demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt he is guilty. This is simply a pardon by another name. A black day in DOJ history.