(Supreme Court of California) - Clarified how California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (relating to pretrial settlement offers) is used in arbitration. Held a request for costs under that provision is timely if filed with the arbitrator within 15 days of a final award. In response to such a request, an arbitrator has authority to award costs to the offering party. However, if an arbitrator refuses to award costs, judicial review is limited.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - On rehearing of a dispute between two creditors, held that Louisiana's non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in aid of arbitration. Further held that subject matter jurisdiction existed here under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant had a right to compel arbitration, but elected to proceed with a judicial forum. However, during the litigation process, Defendant changed its mind and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court held that Defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part. Affirming that a court is not barred from considering additional attorney fees in cases involving settlement agreements, but disagreeing with the application of the standard in the instant case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs attempted to enforce arbitration in an action for elder abuse and wrongful death at a skilled nursing facility. The trial court determined that the successor in interest was bound by the agreement to arbitrate, but the children of the decedent were not so bound. The trial court denied the petition to arbitrate to prevent inconsistent findings if both arbitration and litigation proceeded concurrently. The appeals court agreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel concluded that Amaro v. Continental Can Co., which held that ERISA claims are not arbitrable, is no longer good law in light of intervening Supreme Court case law, including American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, signed an agreement with Defendant requiring binding arbitration of employment disputes after the complaint was filed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration agreeing with Plaintiff that the arbitration agreement referred to future claims not the past ones brought by Plaintiff against Defendant. The appeals court disagreed stating that the agreement to arbitrate was clear and there was no qualifying language as to past or future events.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration for claims of negligent, elder abuse and wrongful death. The trial court found that the claims were not arbitratable because there was no arbitration agreement between Defendant and the decedent.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and during the course of his employment he was required to sign a document that contained an arbitration agreement. He was not afforded the opportunity to read the document before signing and the document was not explained or provided in his first language, Chinese. After his employment with Plaintiff ended, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are not categorically unconscionable as a waiver of the “Berman procedure” found in Labor Code 98, but an agreement to arbitrate must provide an accessible and affordable process. However, in this case the Court reversed the appeals court because the agreement had unusually high degree of procedural unconscionability and the Plaintiff was coerced and misled into accepting this agreement.

On Monday, Denver dispensaries saw their biggest sales day of the year so far, according to data firm Flowhub. Sales were up 140% compared to an average Monday, the company reported.

As the coronavirus pandemic disrupts daily life and commerce in Colorado, many in the state’s marijuana industry believe it makes the case for allowing dispensaries to begin delivering to customers' homes now.

Despite brief, panic-induced surges in business, many contend the cannabis industry is still struggling as Coloradans stay home and job losses mount in a crashing economy.

Charlotte Figi, the young Colorado Springs girl whose battle with Dravet syndrome inspired changes to medical marijuana laws, has died. She was 13 years old.

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, players who test positive for marijuana will no longer be suspended. Testing will be limited to the first two weeks of training camp instead of from April to August, and the threshold for the amount of 9-delta tetrahydrocannabinol -- or THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana — needed to trigger a positive test will be raised fourfold.

Stoners can still light up online.

Colorado's cannabis industry is allowed to remain open to provide "critical" services during the coronavirus pandemic, but because marijuana is a federally controlled substance, dispensaries and other businesses are ineligible to receive stimulus funds to help offset the economic impacts caused by COVID-19.

Dispensaries and cultivations reported 10 burglaries in the first two weeks of April, Denver police said. That's up from eight burglaries reported during the whole month of April 2019.

Denver’s process for auditing marijuana businesses is inadequate and has potentially cost the city countless tax dollars allocated for public service programs, the city auditor alleged Thursday.

Boulder will soon be home to two dispensaries legally delivering medical marijuana.

(CA Court of Appeal) - D074459

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel reversed the district court’s order suppressing evidence found on a laptop seized and searched pursuant to state and federal warrants. Although there was insufficient probable cause to seize the laptop, the court found the DHS special agent’s reliance on the state warrant was reasonable.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for failure to exhaust remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel reasoned that requiring disclosure of information related to subtle and indirect communications likely to influence voters’ votes was critical to the State’s interest in promoting transparency and discouraging circumvention of its electioneering laws.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Held that Division I football players were not employees of the NCAA because the economic realities for student-athletes do not match an employer/employee relationship. The district court’s dismissal of an athlete’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim is affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying an application for authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition, held that the Supreme Court did not announce a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law in Riley v. California.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Concluded that the term “individual” in the context of expedited Freedom of Information Act requests does not include animals as well as human beings. Affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the USDA.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction. Held that a district court may not sua sponte raise the issue of a waiver of rights and deny the motion on that ground.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court’s entry of a “personal money judgment” in Nejad’s criminal case affirmed, finding that Honeycutt v. United States does not bar personal money judgments in the criminal forfeiture context.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Twenty-three defendants appeal the denial of their motions for sentence reductions based on retroactive Sentencing Guidelines revisions. The panel affirms, finding the district court was not required to grant their motions because the sentences were below the range in the Sentencing Guidelines.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Pizzuto’s habeas corpus petition challenged the Idaho Supreme Court’s 2008 decision that his execution was not barred by a state law prohibiting execution of intellectually disabled offenders based on Atkins v. Virginia. Finding the decision did not contradict SCOTUS precedent, the panel affirms.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding that solicitation of a crime as serious as possession of at least four pounds of marijuana was as turpitudinous as the crime itself, the panel denied Romo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she was inadmissible.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the defendant’s new argument was not waived, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action brought under the Truth in Lending Act was affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissed. The government appealed the district court’s granting in part of a motion to enforce a 1997 settlement agreement guaranteeing minors in the custody of immigration agencies be held in facilities that are safe and sanitary. The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not modify the agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing, where the district court held that delivery of methamphetamine in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 475.890 does not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2(b).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The district court dismissed an action brought by exotic dancers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Reversing, the panel held the statutory requirement that plaintiffs must be employees as defined in the FLSA is a merits-based determination, not a jurisdictional limitation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in an ERISA action challenging the denial of plaintiff’s request for early retirement benefits, holding that any procedural irregularities in the actions of the board were minor.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Because forensic cell phone searches require reasonable suspicion, the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his cell phone.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder affirmed. However, because second-degree murder can be committed recklessly, it does not categorically constitute a “crime of violence.” Therefore, the conviction of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence is reversed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Concluding a witness was unavailable due to invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the district court admitted prior civil deposition testimony. The panel affirms, finding any error was harmless because excluding the depositions would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part. Finding the area where Tribe members received traffic citations was within the boundaries of the reservation, the panel held that San Bernardino County did not have jurisdiction to enforce California regulatory traffic laws within that area.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a sentence for attempted illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. The “single sentence rule” in U.S.S.G. Section 4A1.2(a)(2) applies to the enhancements in U.S.S.G. Section 2L1.2(b)(2) and (b)(3).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel concluded that Amaro v. Continental Can Co., which held that ERISA claims are not arbitrable, is no longer good law in light of intervening Supreme Court case law, including American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. Finding that non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 USC Section 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings, the immigration judge deprived Zuniga of his right to counsel by failing to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right.