Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Saturday the company will file a lawsuit against Alameda County and threatened to move its headquarters and future programs to Texas or Nevada immediately, escalating a fight between the company and health officials over whether its factory in Fremont can reopen. Tesla had planned to bring back about 30% of its factory workers Friday as part of its reopening plan, defying Alameda County's stay-at-home order. TechCrunch has reached out to Elon Musk directly.

Sponsored by the People's Government of Qingdao, the 2020 Qingdao·Global Venture Capital Online Conference themed "A New Platform for International Cooperation, A New Opportunity for Technological Innovation" kicked off at Qingdao International Convention Center on May 8. A host of Chinese and overseas experts and scholars from the investment community, industrial circle and academia and entrepreneurs from around the globe joined the "cloud dialogue" through a "face-to-face" plus "screen-to-screen" mode to seek cooperation and share their insights on future development.

Check out our weekly earnings calendar and read the latest quarterly earnings previews.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a judgment of non-paternity. Held that the family court should have ordered genetic testing to determine whether a man was the father of a child born to another man's wife.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an interspousal transaction was not a transmutation of the husband's community interest in certain real property. The document he signed left ambiguous what his intent was. Reversed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an award of sanctions in the form of attorney fees in a marital dissolution proceeding. Addressed a procedural issue related to bringing a motion for sanctions in this context.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed monetary sanctions against a family law attorney for disclosing information contained in a confidential child custody evaluation report. However, reversed the order for sanctions against the client.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution proceeding, resolved issues involving child and spousal support awards, division of assets and other matters.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order establishing a limited conservatorship of the person in a case involving a woman with autism spectrum disorder who objected to the conservatorship and to the appointment of her mother and elder sister as conservators.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a party had appealed nonappealable orders. Dismissed the appeal, in relevant part, in a dispute between the first and second wives of a deceased man regarding ownership of certain assets.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a spousal support obligation did not terminate upon an ex-spouse's remarriage because the couple had agreed in writing that the relevant provision of the California Family Code would not apply. Recommended that a particular form on which the couple had left a box unchecked, leading to this result, be revised. Reversed a postjudgment order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a child custody order on the basis that it was not supported by the evidence. The order would have changed primary physical custody from the mother in California to the father in Arkansas.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution case, held that a particular piece of real estate was community property. Reversed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, addressed how to apportion certain stock appreciation. The issue involved stock in a business that the husband started prior to marriage.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a father was not entitled to an adjustment in the child support arrears that accrued during his incarceration in federal prison. Vacated the decision below and remanded for further proceedings in this family court matter.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a California family court lacked jurisdiction to modify a North Carolina child custody and child support order. Reversed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order requiring a woman to pay $10,000 in sanctions to her ex-husband in a marital dissolution proceeding.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, upheld a ruling that a premarital agreement was enforceable and waived spousal support to either party. The parties had retained a private judge to resolve the issue.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution action, addressed whether a doctor appointed by the court to prepare a child custody evaluation report must repay all of the fees the parties had paid him pursuant to his appointment. Finding his report deficient, the trial judge had given it no weight.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the issuance of a mutual restraining order against a husband. He was the one who had petitioned for the domestic violence restraining order, and his wife had not filed a separate request for one.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order imposing sanctions as to Trigger and reversed as to Taeb. Defendant Taeb and his attorney Trigger appealed order for sanctions for failure to appear for trial. Sanctions were based on Trigger’s misrepresentation to the court that she was ready for trial, when in fact she was not.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a dispute arising from the revocation of plaintiff's religious tax exempt status, RPTL section 420-a (1)(a), judgment of the appellate division reversing revocation is affirmed, because defendant-township failed to prove its burden that the subject property is now subject to taxation where the sole use of the property has been the operation of a summer camp with a religious curriculum.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute involving the scope of Treasury Regulation section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1) and arising from the transfer of membership units in an LLC partly as a gift and partly by sale to two trusts with simultaneous gifts of LLC units to two charitable foundations under a reallocation clause, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where Section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1), upon trigger of the reallocation clause, does not bar a charitable deduction equal to the value of the additional units the foundations will receive.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a tax-exempt charitable organization's action against a school district seeking to recoup erroneously paid taxes, summary judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district was entitled to rely on the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law section 3813(2-b) rather than the general six-year period for contract actions; and 2) the taxpayer's cause of action for money had and received accrued when it paid the taxes, which was more than one year before it filed suit.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - On petition for a redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies brought by a 501(c)(4) nonprofit homeowners association, the Tax Court's ruling against the association is affirmed, where the net income derived by the association from its parking lots and beach club benefitted the private interests of the association members rather than the general public, and therefore was not "substantially related" to the association's purpose of promoting social welfare, but rather was taxable as "unrelated business taxable income" under IRC sections 511-513.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trespass suit brought by a grocery store against a church soliciting donations in front of the store, summary judgment in favor of the store is affirmed, where: 1) the church's solicitation was not protected by In re Lane (1969) 71 Cal.2d 872, because there was no relation between the church's expressive activities and the store's location; and 2) the church did not contend or present evidence to establish that the store or the sidewalk in front was a public forum within the meaning of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit by two former ministers against the Church of Scientology claiming they were forced to provide labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, as the plaintiffs have not established a genuine issue of fact regarding whether they were victims of forced-labor violations. Moreover, the district court was right to recognize that courts may not scrutinize many aspects of the minister-church relationship in basing its rulings on the ministerial exception.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute between two monasteries for copyright infringement of a religious text, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, as the plaintiff has established both elements of an infringement claim of actual copying and actionable copying, and all of the defenses set forth by the defendant are without merit.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit theater corporation, filed applications for real property tax exemptions with respondent assessor and was denied. Petitioner then commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding for review of its tax assessments. Order of the Appellate Division granting the petition is affirmed, where: 1) the statute does not elevate one exempt purpose over another, and under the circumstances, the use of property to provide staff housing is reasonable incidental to petitioner's primary purpose of encouraging appreciation of the arts through theater; and 2) petitioner has demonstrated that it is entitled to an RPTL 420-a tax exemption.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit religious corporation that owns real property, commenced proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7 after respondent Board of Assessment and Review for the Town of Catskill refused petitioner's applications for tax-exempt status pursuant to RPTL 420-a. The Appellate Division's grant of the petitions is affirmed, where petitioner adequately established its entitled to the RPTL 420-a exemption, as the proof at trial established that petitioner "exclusively" utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between two factions of a church over control of church property, the trial court's judgment is affirmed over meritless claims that it erred: 1) when it found in favor of respondents based on appellants' excommunication from the Holy Hill Community Church (Church) by the Western California Presbytery (WCP); 2) by admitting evidence of events occurring after the cross-complaint was filed; and 3) when it prevented appellants' counsel from cross-examining a representative of the WCP whose testimony was sought by respondents.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a property tax refund action based on the welfare exemption set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 214, the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the State Board of Equalization's (SBE) interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous; 2) the SBE's advisory rule regarding who must file a welfare exemption is not binding and therefore should not be given independent legal effect; and 3) the County failed to establish that the trial court should have denied a tax refund because plaintiff's claims were tardy and its claim forms were incomplete.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case concerning the ownership of property that belonged to the Dioceses before the disaffiliation of a majority of members from the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where, although the trial court made certain errors, applying neutral principles of law, the property belongs to plaintiffs.

(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal of a tax court decision affirming a determination by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that he owed $3.790 million in income taxes and penalties on $5.65 million in bank deposits petitioner made and interest earned from 1995 to 2002, the tax court determination is affirmed over petitioner's contentions that these deposits were not his taxable personal income but the program income of a social welfare organization that had tax-exempt status pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 501(c), where an organization distinct from petitioner did not exist during the applicable tax years.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by three religiously-affiliated non-profit corporations to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's are not entitled to a preliminary injunction based on their free exercise claims; 2) the Act is a neutral lawof general applicability, which survived rational basis review; and 3) plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case to decide whether the City and County of San Francisco can compel state universities that operate parking lots in the city to collect city taxes from parking users and remit them to San Francisco, the trial court's denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where the California Constitution's 'home-rule provision' -- which grants charter cities broad powers, including the power to tax -- does not create an exception to the long-recognized doctrine that exempts state entities from local regulation when they are performing governmental functions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a $4 million default judgment against the Jehovah's Witness religious organization, in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a child who allegedly was sexually molested by a congregation elder. The default judgment was a sanction for the religious organization's refusal to produce certain documents in discovery.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a church's claim that a city's zoning code violated federal and state statutes protecting religious freedom by treating religious uses of property on unequal terms with analogous secular uses and unreasonably limiting where religious organizations may locate in the city. Reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment for the IRS and finding petitioner liable for federal income tax deficiencies for the taxable years 2003 and 2004 is affirmed where the Tax Court correctly applied a 'single entity' approach to reduce the consolidated net operating loss of Marvel Entertainment, LLC's consolidated group by its previously excluded cancellation of debt income.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit alleging contract and intellectual property claims against a variety of companies affiliated with Sony Music Entertainment, concerning an original song and music video that plaintiff submitted to Sony as part of a songwriting contest sponsored by Sony, the District Court's dismissal of all claims and order compelling arbitration are affirmed where: 1) the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; and 2) plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).