(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 Supreme Court) - In a case involving personal guaranties to secure real estate development loans, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in favor of the lender is affirmed by an equally divided court.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a suit brought by a village, established pursuant to an 1882 Act that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to survey, appraise, and sell roughly 50,000 acres of Omaha Indian Reservation land lying west of a railroad right-of-way, seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from asserting its jurisdiction over the disputed land and imposing an amended Beverage Control Ordinance on village retailers, the Eighth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in favor of Tribe is affirmed where the 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a putative employment class action brought by meat processors, alleging that the donning and doffing of safety gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that employer's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and violated Iowa wage law, the Eight Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in worker's favor is affirmed where District Court did not err in certifying and maintaining the class because common questions, such as whether donning and doffing protective gear was compensable under the FLSA, were susceptible to classwide resolution even if not all of the workers wore the same gear.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal concerns the interpretation and administration of a family trust, the residuary assets of which comprise cash and other liquid assets, real property, and royalty agreements for licensing of the Marie Callender name, the trial court's ruling, that the trust residuary should be divided based on what the parties referred to as the 'changing fraction method,' is reversed where: 1) based on the terms of the trust that initially divided the residuary into one-third interests for each of the three beneficiaries, those percentage interests remained fixed and the changing fraction method does not apply; and 2) the court erred when it ruled defendant was responsible for a portion of the estate taxes on a piece of real property left to her outright, because the trust stated she was not to be liable for any taxes.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, challenging the FDA's decision to redact certain commercially-sensitive information concerning egg-production farms in Texas, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the FDA properly withheld information under FOIA exemption 4 that was likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

(United States First Circuit) - Sentence and conviction by guilty plea to coercion and enticement of a minor, and the sexual exploitation of a child, are affirmed over defendant's challenges where: 1) the District Court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and 2) the sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case that involves a man, his emotional support dog, and a condominium association's 'no pets' rule, alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 3601-3619, the condominium association's petition for judicial review of a final order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is denied and the Secretary's cross-petition for enforcement of his order is granted where substantial evidence supports the Secretary's finding that the Association's refusal to allow the former condo owner to keep an emotional support dog in his condominium unit as a reasonable accommodation for his disability was unlawful.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action stemming from the plaintiffs' purchase of a piece of land and the opposition the defendants mounted to the plaintiffs' plan to develop that property, alleging defendants' conduct violated various constitutional and state law provisos, including 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 12, section 11, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs did not give sufficient facts to state plausible-on-their-face claims, ones that gave rise to more than a mere possibility of liability.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit alleging defendant breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico's Law 75 of June 24, 1964, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 section 278, the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against defendant and dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was barred under Law 75's three-year statute of limitations and properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

(United States First Circuit) - In a consolidated criminal appeal, one defendant's sentence and both defendants' convictions of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and its agency, HUD, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371, are affirmed over defendants' meritless claims of error regarding: 1) void for vagueness; 2) insufficient evidence; 3) jury pool contamination; 4) credibility bolstering; 5) prejudicial cross examination; 6) mens rea; 7) supplemental instruction; and 8) improper sentencing.

(United States First Circuit) - Sentence for conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location, 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 846 and 860, is affirmed over defendant's claims that the sentence is both procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable where, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as the applicability of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the starting point for a court's sentencing determination is the guideline range, not the parties' recommendations.

(United States First Circuit) - In cross-appeals that arise from the ongoing efforts by two brothers to satisfy a multi-billion dollar judgment they won against the Republic of Cuba and other Cuban parties, the District Court's ruling, that certain assets they seek to attach to satisfy that judgment are not the property of the Cuban government and thus are not subject to attachment in satisfaction of their judgment, is affirmed where: 1) the District Court had the authority to revisit its initial determination that Cuba owned the assets subject to the February 12 turnover order because it was not a final judgment; 2) dismissal was proper because U.S. courts will not give extraterritorial effect to a foreign state's confiscatory law. Denial of defendant's motion for attorney is affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS is affirmed over restaurant company-appellant's appeal, where: 1) the Board's decision contains no harmful legal error; and 2) the Board's finding that the mark is generic is supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an attorney's fees action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action is reversed where: 1) an award of attorneys' fees are permissible under F.R.C.P. 41(d) ; but 2) the Fair Labor Standards Act does not permit an award of attorneys' fees for defendants and plaintiff's conduct was not undertaken in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Conviction for wire fraud and aggravated theft in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme is affirmed where: 1) lender negligence, or intentional disregard, in verifying loan application information is not a defense to fraud; and 2) evidence of negligence or intentional disregard is inadmissible as a defense against mortgage fraud charges.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

(United States First Circuit) - In a petition, brought by a native and citizen of Colombia, to review a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen; and 2) she has failed to carry the burden of persuasion for her asylum claim, and her counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily fails.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case involving a dispute over an unwritten and allegedly exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff and Hormel Foods Corp. under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act (Law 75), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 sections 278-278e, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where plaintiff's exclusivity claim as presented is time-barred; and 2) reversed in part where the statute of limitations bar to recovery extends to plaintiff's Costco-related claim as well.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a section 1983 suit against several county entities and individuals, alleging various constitutional violations, including defendant's retaliation against plaintiff for publicly opposing of defendant's reelection as the President of the Moosic, Pennsylvania Borough Council, the district court's decision denying defendant's claim to qualified immunity is reversed where he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if plaintiff's allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a class action brought by three former baristas at Starbucks, challenging defendant's practice of withholding state and federal taxes from baristas' paychecks based on cash tips received, the district court's dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the case remanded to state court where: 1) the Tax Injunction Act and the Anti-Injunction Act deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief; and 2) the federal-state comity doctrine bars the district court from awarding statutory damages on the state-tax component of the plaintiffs' claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In putative class actions brought against ConAgra Foods in eleven states by consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled '100% Natural' during the relevant period, the district court's class certification is affirmed where the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure neither provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class certification.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of review challenging the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's 15-day suspension of an off-sale general license held by a CVS Pharmacy Store after an administrative law judge found the store clerk sold alcohol to a minor decoy, the Alcohol Beverage Control Appeals Board's reversal of the suspension based on California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 141 (Rule 141) that allows a law enforcement agency to use an underage decoy only in a fashion that promotes fairness, is annulled where: 1) Rule 141 is not ambiguous in requiring minor decoys to answer truthfully only questions about their ages; 2) substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge's factual finding that the decoy was not questioned about his age; and 3) Rule 141 does not provide CVS with a defense to the accusation it sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage buyer.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), brought by growers who sold their perishable agricultural products on credit to a distributor, thereby making the distributor a trustee over a PACA trust holding the perishable products and any resulting proceeds for the growers as PACA-trust beneficiaries, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where pursuant to Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 128 (9th Cir.2001), a commercially reasonable factoring agreement removes accounts receivable from the PACA trust without a trustee's breach of trust, thus defeating the growers' claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a lawsuit alleging that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing plaintiffs' rulemaking petitions, which requested that each agency promulgate regulations that would require all egg cartons to identify the conditions in which the egg-laying hens were kept during production, the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal agencies is affirmed where: 1) the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked authority to promulgate plaintiffs' proposed labeling regulations for shell eggs: 2) the Agricultural Marketing Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs’ rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to promulgate mandatory labeling requirements for shell eggs; 3) the Federal Trade Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition; and 4) the Food and Drug Administration barely met its low burden to clearly indicate that it considered the potential problem identified in plaintiffs' petition, and provide a reasonable explanation for not initiating rulemaking.

(United States First Circuit) - In a wrongful death action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, a provider of vacations for students, is reversed where the court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of causation after allowing no discovery on the issue and receiving no briefing on the matter from the parties.

(United States First Circuit) - In a commercial action, brought by a commercial fisherman challenging various provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where plaintiff's suit was not filed within the thirty-day statute of limitations.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action alleging that New York City grocery stores operated by Whole Foods Market-defendant systematically overstated the weights of pre‐packaged food products and overcharged customers as a result, the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of Article III standing because he failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact, is vacated where plaintiff plausibly alleged an injury in fact.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is affirmed by an en banc court where: 1) thirty years ago, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986), this Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the same California and Professions Code provision; and 2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) did not modify the Central Hudson test that been applied in Actmedia.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of a class-action suit alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is affirmed because subsequent legislation clarified that receipts with credit card expiration dates do not raise a material risk of identity theft and no specific harm was alleged.

(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 Third Circuit) - Affirming a summary judgment to the defendant Tyson Foods in a dispute involving their use of the word 'Parks' in reference to hotdogs where the plaintiff once held trademark on this word's use to sell hotdogs until it failed to renew the trademark in the early 2000's.