(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the federal government was time-barred from seeking civil penalties against two electric power companies that allegedly violated the Clean Air Act by failing to obtain a statutorily mandated preconstruction permit for the modification of their facilities. Also held, however, that the government still could pursue injunctive relief, and thus reversed the dismissal of the government's complaint in relevant part.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part where a jury found that defendant had infringed on plaintiff's patents and had awarded damages based on the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the infringement judgment, but vacated the damages award stating that the entire market value rule could not be used in this case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Denied petitions for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff sought a writ challenging the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying the institution of inter partes review of claims from three patents owned by Semiconductor Components industries, LLC.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Plaintiff, SEC, filed suit against Defendant for failure to register interests in oil and gas drilling projects as securities. District court granted SEC motion for summary judgement. Appeals court revered and remanded because Defendant had raised several issues of material fact that the district court failed to consider.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded. A final rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration intended to make it easier for community credit unions to expand their coverage that was opposed by bankers was largely affirmed, but remanded to consider a portion that might impact poor and minority urban residents.

(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.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment for the defense in a diversity action brought by doctors alleging claims arising from their assignment of patents to the company that it failed to develop into FDA-approved drugs because the jury instructions were not improper and the verdict wasn't against the clear weight of the evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of an interference claim for lack of standing and remanding for further proceedings because the description of a method for removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles was a sufficient written description under the Patent Act because although the description only gave optical density rather than particles per ml, this was enough of a disclosure to convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.

Actress and left-wing activist Alyssa Milano has promoted a deceptively edited video about Vice President Mike Pence that was created by late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel -- even though the video has been debunked and Kimmel has publicly apologized for it.

Hungary's parliament has passed a declaration against signing the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women because it smuggles in provisions declaring gender a "social construct" and allowing "gender-based asylum claims".

(United States Supreme Court) - Declaring a writ of certiorari petition moot in the case of Microsoft's attempt to avoid providing emails pursuant to a Government warrant investigating the drug trade because a new warrant was issued under a new law that, unlike the old version, permitted the Government to demand emails stored on overseas datacenters under Trump's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed the certification of a class in a lawsuit alleging that a restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its parking lots were difficult to ambulate in a wheelchair. The 500-location restaurant chain contended that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy some of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Agreeing, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to reconsider if a class should be certified.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(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.

The Bermuda Housing Corporation has opened its Church Street offices for payments only. A spokesperson said, “The Bermuda Housing Corporation has...

[Ministerial statement by Minister of Public Works Lt/Col David Burch] Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short months ago that the world was hit with a...

#62ndGrammyAwards #GrammyAwards #GrammyNominations #MelissaB

#62ndGrammyAwards #Blues #GrammyAwards #GrammyNominations

Jose Fajardo, Jr.’s Father, Jose Fajardo, Would Have Been 100 On This Day. This Show Will Celebrate The Charanga Flute Master Who Was Well Known During The Palladium Days!

(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.

Jose Fajardo, Jr.’s Father, Jose Fajardo, Would Have Been 100 On This Day. This Show Will Celebrate The Charanga Flute Master Who Was Well Known During The Palladium Days!

We explore what antibody testing is and the potential it has against the coronavirus as UC Davis Health begins testing some of its healthcare workers. Local county leaders check in, and the results of the Next Generation Jazz Festival.

#62ndGrammyAwards #Blues #GrammyAwards #GrammyNominations

(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.