(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Claims of breach of contract, emotional distress, negligence, and promissory estoppel arising from disciplinary action taken by a school against a student accused of sexual assault after extensive proceedings were defective and the case was properly dismissed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Finding the promise to arbitrate in the franchise application was supported by adequate consideration, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of DAI’s motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. On remand from the Supreme Court the panel determined that the parties to an arbitration clause did not clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the district court had the power to make this determination.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A company sued a former employee who went to work for a direct competitor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction because there was an employment agreement with a non-compete provision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment and reinstated jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The trial court granted Defendant, Wells Fargo’s motions including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict that found Wells Fargo committed fraud in a Home Affordable Mortgage Program case. The appeals court reversed the rulings and the judgment that it found in favor of Wells Fargo and remanded for further proceedings consistent with appeals court ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially vacated, otherwise affirmed, and remanded. The dismissal of breach of contract claims were vacated, but judgments dismissing civil conspiracy claims and refusal to submit punitive damages claims to a jury were affirmed in a case involving disputes over discounts to charges for physical therapy patients covered by workers' compensation insurance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granted writ of mandate and directed trial court to vacate order granting summary adjudication motion. The appeals court held that the trial court’s per se application of Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the contract in question was incorrect.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant failed to pay them for their work growing marijuana as agreed under a contract. Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. The trial court ordered Plaintiff to take the Defendant’s default by a specified date. The default was taken. Defendant then sought to set-aside the default. The trial court denied relief. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion finding that the Defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint was knowing and deliberate.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a proposed class action alleging that a company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending doctors unsolicited fax advertisements. The company attempted to moot the case by paying the named plaintiff's claim in full. Vacated a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed an order compelling arbitration of a consumer's claims. The consumer contended that the defendant technology company had waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process, in this putative class action.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Federal Trade Commission Act could support an order compelling an online payday lender to pay more than $1 billion in monetary relief for unfair business practices. Two of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel filed a concurring opinion to suggest that the court should rehear the case en banc to reconsider relevant circuit precedent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a borrower's Truth in Lending Act lawsuit seeking to rescind a loan for which the lender allegedly made improper disclosures. Held that the suit was not time-barred because the borrower had brought it within six years, which was the most analogous state statute of limitations. Reversed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a consumer's proposed class action, which alleged that a debt-collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The letter allegedly stated that important information was on the back of its first page, but the information was on the front of its second page.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a consumer lawsuit alleging that Cheez‐It crackers are misleadingly labeled as being whole grain. Held that the proposed class action complaint plausibly alleged that the labeling is deceptive.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court awarded too little in attorney fees to a vehicle purchaser who had prevailed on a lemon law claim. The fees should not have been limited to a percentage of her modest damages award. Reversed and remanded for a determination of a reasonable fee award.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a bank was not vicariously liable, as a matter of law, for its loan servicer's alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Affirmed dismissal of a complaint brought by a borrower who took out a home equity loan.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a consumer's claim that certain nutritional supplements were falsely labeled as capable of improving cognitive functions when in fact they provided no such benefits. Reversed the entry of summary judgment, allowing class claims under California law to proceed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court improperly reduced the amount of attorney fees to which vehicle purchasers were entitled after prevailing in a lemon law suit. Reversed and remanded with instructions to award the plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that Fannie Mae is not a consumer reporting agency and thus could not be sued over a false credit report. Consumers alleged that the government-sponsored mortgage market entity had provided false information about their credit history via a software tool it provides for mortgage lenders to use. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Fannie Mae was entitled to summary judgment because it did not fall within the definition of a consumer reporting agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that makers of vitamin E supplements did not violate California laws against false advertising. A consumer alleged that the product labels made untrue health claims. Affirmed summary judgment against a proposed class action.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that thirteen collection agencies violated federal law in collecting payday loan and other debts. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in this civil enforcement action against the collection agencies and their co-owners.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a consumer could not proceed with a proposed class action challenging electricity rates in the wake of market deregulation. Affirmed summary judgment against his breach of contract, unfair trade practice and other claims alleging that a retail electricity supplier charged unlawful rates.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by reporting to a credit bureau that a debtor had nine unpaid bills of $60, rather than simply indicating an aggregate debt of $540. Reversed the district court, in this case involving co-pays for physical therapy sessions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a consumer could not proceed with a claim that a debt collection letter unlawfully failed to inform him of certain information. Affirmed the dismissal of his proposed class action lawsuit against the debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed most of a judgment against a mobile home park. The residents contended that the park breached their contracts and violated various laws, and a jury rendered a verdict in their favor. However, the California Court of Appeal held that the award of damages could not be sustained under any of the theories of liability presented to the jury.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a consumer's claim that a nonprofit corporation involved in student loans was vicariously liable for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because it had ratified student loan debt collectors' illegal calling practices. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived an automobile lessee's lawsuit against a car dealership. Held that the dealership did not make a timely and appropriate offer to correct the alleged issue, for purposes of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived businesses' claims that they were sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Reversed a dismissal, in a case raising issues of standing to sue.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a consumer reporting agency lawfully disclosed the plaintiff's decades-old criminal record for battery to a landlord when she applied to rent an apartment. Affirmed summary judgment against her claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar borrowers from pursuing legal relief against an online lending business owned by an Indian tribe. The borrowers contended that the loans had unlawfully high interest rates. Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that recipients of unsolicited spam text messages had legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the company that sent them. Affirmed a ruling in a class action suit under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure is constitutionally permissible. A law firm raised the argument in contending that it was not required to comply with the bureau's investigative demand to respond to interrogatories about its debt relief services and marketing. The Ninth Circuit rejected the law firm's position.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court when it found defendant violated the Consumer Product Safety Act and entered a permanent injunction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld sanctions that the Department of Motor Vehicles imposed on a car dealer. The dealer should have returned buyers' down payments when it repossessed the cars after the buyers failed to obtain financing.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tenant's lawsuit against a company that screens prospective tenants. He brought the suit after being denied housing due to criminal history disclosures appearing in his tenant screening report. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and several California statutes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a car purchaser did not raise a triable issue that a dealership failed to provide customers promised add-ons. Also addressed an issue under the Class Action Fairness Act relating to removal jurisdiction. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a retail customer must arbitrate a dispute with a package delivery company because the online contract he electronically signed contained an enforceable arbitration clause. Denied a writ of mandamus, in this proposed class action lawsuit challenging pricing practices.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en-banc decision, affirmed the approval of a class action settlement in a multidistrict litigation brought against two automobile manufacturers, which had been accused of making misrepresentations about their vehicles' fuel economy. Also upheld attorney fee awards, rejecting objectors' challenges.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, affirmed a preliminary injunction freezing the assets of companies that allegedly had made deceptive representations regarding loan modification services.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a car purchaser's successful lemon law suit, held that the trial court used an improper method to determine reasonable attorney fees. Remanded for a recalculation of the fee award.