(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) in favor of Defendants in part and granted new trial. Defendants, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JCCI) manufactured talcum products that Plaintiff’s allege caused injury. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion for JNOV as to liability and punitive damages and for a new trial. The trial court granted the motions. The appeals court affirmed the JNOV in favor of Johnson & Johnson, but partially reversed as to Defendant, JCCI. Appeals court found no malice to support punitive damages, but found causation evidence in conflict and affirmed granting a new trial to JCCI.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability for an assault that injured him in the Defendant's parking lot. The trial court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing foreseeability of violent criminal assaults. Therefore, Defendant did not have a legal duty to implement additional security measures to prevent possible third-party conduct.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A $2.8 million verdict in a car accident and injury case was vacated because there was no evidence to support an award for future mental anguish or future pain and suffering.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a man's conviction under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act for conspiring with a woman to remove her child to Nicaragua in order to prevent her civil-union partner from exercising parental rights. Appealing his conviction, the man argued that the district court should have suppressed location information garnered from his cellphone records because the government obtained them through a subpoena issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act rather than a court‐approved warrant. Finding no merit in this contention or in his objection to the jury instructions, the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization, in this lawsuit brought by the estate of an American schoolteacher who was killed in a terrorist attack in the West Bank. Affirmed a dismissal, finding that the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 did not apply here.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant appeals his bribery conviction, arguing improper jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The court finds the “official act” standard from McDonnell does not apply to Guinea’s Penal Code, and any potential evidentiary errors were harmless. Judgement is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the absence of the invalidated extension statute, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation for property taken from Plaintiffs’ ancestors during the Armenian Genocide brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act were barred by the statute of limitations for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment in retaliation for protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is affirmed, where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish that his alleged protected activities were a contributing factor to his termination.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a health insurance company did not violate the Affordable Care Act's Medical Loss Ratio provision, which requires an insurer to pay a rebate to enrollees if it uses less than 80 percent of the revenue it takes in to pay medical claims. Affirmed a dismissal, in this proposed class action lawsuit brought by health insurance enrollees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(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 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 Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A tenured teacher who waged an extended campaign against students who did not give him an award and sued the school when the Board of Trustees took action against him lost his appeal of the grant of summary judgment to the school. The First Amendment didn't protect his firing for intentionally causing harm to students and failing to follow the dean's instructions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. An employee bringing a Private Attorney General’s Act claim may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of the claim that seeks to recover underpaid wages.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissal of a workplace harassment suit was affirmed because after harassment was reported the company swiftly investigated and fired the harasser. No evidence was presented to support allegations of harassment in the victim's subsequent dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county appeals board erred in denying a hotel's request for a property tax refund. The hotel contended that the property valuation was incorrect. Reversed and remanded to the board for a new hearing.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an ethics and professional responsibility action, arising out of a dispute between class plaintiffs over conflicts of interest among class counsel, the district court's rejection of the motion to disqualify counsel is affirmed where California does not apply a rule of automatic disqualification for conflicts of simultaneous representation in the class action context and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel will adequately represent the class.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(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 DC Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the presidential communications privilege barred disclosure of five memoranda memorializing advice to President Obama about a military strike on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.