(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an en banc review of the Court of Federal Claims ruling against the government in a suit on behalf of shareholders of a failing bank that merged with a solvent bank, alleging that the government breached its contracts with the acquiring bank, jurisdiction was properly exercised by the Court of Federal Claims, as; 1) when a government agency is asserted to have breached an express or implied contract that it entered on behalf of the United States, there is Tucker Act jurisdiction of the cause unless such jurisdiction was explicitly withheld or withdrawn by statute, and 2) the jurisdictional foundation of the Tucker Act is not limited by the appropriation status of the agency's funds or the source of funds by which any judgment may be paid.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a suit for tortious interference with prospective business relations and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' alleged participation in derailing the plaintiff company's acquisition by a third party, the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed by memorandum, where the plaintiffs failed to produce evidentiary proof as to whether: 1) individual defendants participated in a co-defendant's admitted campaign to interfere with the proposed acquisition; 2) defendant entities should be held vicariously liable for the interference; or 3) an individual plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a shareholder derivative action against officers and directors of Countrywide Financial Corporations, alleging that defendants had mismanaged the company's mortgage lending business and other claims, trial court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) pursuant to the continuous ownership rule, plaintiff had no standing to maintain shareholder derivative claims on behalf of Countrywide after its acquisition by Bank of America Corporation and merger into another corporation; and 2) Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v Caiafa cannot be read to support plaintiff's contention that he has adequately alleged a factual basis for application of the fraud exception to the continuous ownership rule based on dicta in that case.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's judgment denying the petition to confirm a Brazilian arbitral award is vacated and remanded, where the district court decided that the parties' dispute was beyond the scope of their arbitration agreement, without first determining whether the parties had agreed to an arbitration clause that clearly and unmistakably assigned to an arbitral panel, rather than to the court, any questions about the scope of their arbitration agreement.

(United States First Circuit) - In this case, plaintiff-software-company hired defendant-bank to assist it in finding an acquisition partner. The acquisition partner later was found to have fraudulently overstated its earnings, and bankruptcy ensued for the merged company, after which the present litigation followed, alleging various common-law claims including gross negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Mass. Ben. Laws ch. 93A. Judgment finding defendant not liable on all claims is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's conduct, even if sloppy and unforthcoming, was not unfair or deceptive, the factual findings are supported by the record, and the court correctly applied the ch. 93A legal standard to those findings; and 2) there were no other errors, and even if there were, those errors were harmless.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger, and in light of Delaware Supreme Court's answer to a certified question that plaintiff was not required to bring its breach of contract claim as a derivative action, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor defendant is vacated where plaintiff is not barred from pursuing its claim directly.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger agreement in which one party agreed to indemnify the other against a purely hypothetical tax loss, involving the issue of whether the prepayments and credits, and resulting tax refunds, affect the tax indemnification obligation of the sellers, the District Court's judgment in favor of sellers is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where; 1) the indemnification provision is ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of the sellers; and 2) the parties' arguments about the purpose and negotiating history of the provision cannot be resolved without the aid of a fact-finder.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court conclusion in a putative securities class action relating to a corporate merger that the Securities Exchange Act does not create a private right of action for shareholders confronted with a tender offer and dismissing the complaint as to one defendant, who was not a proper defendant, holding that the Exchange Act requires a showing of negligence rather than scienter for the claims brought, and remanding for the district court to reconsider the defense motion to dismiss under the negligence standard.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that two merging companies both breached an asset purchase agreement. The buyer and seller each argued that the other party had breached their agreement. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the seller's breach of certain post-closing obligations did not excuse the buyer from its obligation to pay the full purchase price, because these covenants were independent. The appeals court therefore reversed denial of the seller's JNOV motion.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a company that entered into an unconsummated merger agreement was not entitled to payment of a $275 million termination fee. The proposed merger had been approved by a bankruptcy court because one of the parties was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Third Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in narrowing the circumstances under which the termination fee would be triggered, resulting ultimately in no fee being paid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of two drug store chains in a dispute with a shopping mall over common area maintenance fees. The case raised questions about real property rights and reverse triangular mergers.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute that arose out of the sale of a manufacturing plant, held that the district judge was correct to withhold any remedy that would transfer the value of certain promissory notes from the secured lenders to the seller. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration award in a business dispute involving one company's sale of certain assets to another. Affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Held that the City of Chicago violated the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay when it continued to hold debtors' impounded vehicles until they paid their outstanding parking tickets. The city must return the vehicles to the debtors, the Seventh Circuit concluded in these four consolidated Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a former deputy constable may not proceed with his whistleblower retaliation and equal-protection claims. Some were barred by res judicata and others by qualified immunity. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from order of the probate court denying their request that special needs trust be distributed to them rather than Department of Health Care Services. Appeals court found Department was entitled to reimbursement for Medi-Cal expenses.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed as modified. Defendant failed to comply with an administrative order for various violations of county codes on his property. County filed suit and was awarded penalties, costs and attorney fees, but at a lower rate than amount ordered by administrative court. Appeals court modified assessment of penalties to the higher rate.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiffs as voters in North Carolina and Maryland filed suit challenging congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that are beyond the reach of the federal courts.

(United States DC Circuit) - Affirming. Doe is a US citizen in the custody of the Department of Defense after his capture in Syria. He sought to prevent his transfer during the pendancy of a habeas corpus claim since this would place him outside of the court's jurisdiction. The court affirmed a district court injunction barring the government from transferring Doe to Country B, and the injunction requiring 72 hours notice before transfer to Country A.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded for dismissal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued following a US Department of Commerce announcement that citizenship would be among the questions included in the 2020 census. EPIC sought to enjoin the question because they claim their members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment. However, EPIC lacked standing to proceed with the suit.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. Plaintiffs are state correctional employees who sought additional compensation for pre and postwork activities that include walking from outermost gate of prison to their work posts. The court divided Plaintiffs into two groups: union and non-union. The appeals court held that the non-union employees were entitled to overtime. The California Supreme Court held the union employees were not entitled to additional compensation because their collective bargaining agreement took that into account. And the non-union were not entitled because the walking time did not fit the definition of compensable work time under the Pay Scale Manual.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed trial court’s judgment and order denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Defendants were tenants of a commercial property that was subject to eminent domain. When the court for the eminent domain action, awarded Defendants for their loss, Plaintiff filed suit to recover Defendant’s eminent domain award. The trial court held that when a business owner’s property is taken by eminent domain their compensation is separate and apart from property owners interests.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. An organization of wireless providers appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in their challenge of a Berkeley ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to warn potential buyers that carrying a phone could cause them to exceed FCC guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Stay of the district court order granting Plaintiffs injunction is not warranted. Plaintiffs sued Defendants to enjoining them from reprogramming funds from the Department of Defense toward building a barrier along our country’s southern border. The appeals court concluded that Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood that they will prevail in this litigation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and dismiss. Appeal from the denial of a qualified immunity for the city attorney in a Section 1983 suit. Appeals court found Plaintiff has no standing to pursue the claim in federal court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. The Appeals court held that the current policy of the California Department of Social Services treating court-ordered child support as income and using the same funds twice as income for both the paying household and the receiving household does not violate the Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. Plaintiff sued seeking to expand its primary runway. The district court ruled that Plaintiff lacked standing to invalidate a Connecticut statute prohibiting the expansion, but even if it had standing the Federal Aviation Act did not preempt the statute. The appeals court disagreed and reversed and remanded for an entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The proper scope of judicial review of a school district’s decision is an independent judicial review. Such a review requires a hearing and making specific factual findings. The appeals court remanded for reconsideration of the writ petition under correct standards.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed and remanded. The Government Claims Act immunity for public entities is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited if not timely raised.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed juvenile court order that refused to allow mother to testify or call witnesses because her counsel had not filed a joint trial statement as required by a local rule. Appeals court ruled local rule was invalid.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated. A district court conclusion that executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees was unlawful was in error. The district court lacked jurisdiction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(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. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. District court granted summary judgment to Defendant police department against Plaintiff’s claim of civil rights violations for seizure of firearms from residence and failure to return them.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court granted City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued City for injuries from tripping and falling over a defective sidewalk. The trial court ruled that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a rental property owner, filed suit against Defendant, a rent control board, to prevent certain properties from being subject to rent control. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff, but the appeals court held that the rent board did not have the authority to exempt rental units from rent control under the Santa Monica City Charter.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The majority of a merits panel affirmed a district court judgment declaring a Mississippi redistricting plan as violative of the Voting Rights Act.

(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.