(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denying plaintiff's damages claim arising out of its contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build housing units on Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Board's decision is affirmed where there was no change to the base access policy that forced additional costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving an airport lease and operating agreement, brought by a company alleging that the city had a flawed bidding process, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's leave to amend its petition and complaint is affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Army and dismissing the private party's claims for contract reformation and breach of contract in the case of a marina on land leased from the Army that was rendered unusable for a period of time while the Army reduced the water level of a lake to repair a dam.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the portion of a judgment commanding the Department of Finance of California to consider whether certain expenditures fall under the 'goods and services' provision because the failure of the City of Grass Valley to raise the issue in an administrative forum precluded it from trial court relief, but directing the trial court to issue a new writ commanding the Department to consider the City's claim regarding a highway project agreement, and otherwise affirming the denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate in a case relating to the mass dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the state.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Pomona violated the terms of a 1993 ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits. A citizen group challenged the city council's decision to extend a pre-existing agreement with an outdoor advertising company when the arrangement expired in 2014. Affirmed the granting of a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a labor union's claim that a municipality violated a law concerning contract bidding when it hired a new private company to operate its municipal bus system. Reversed a dismissal and remanded, in this case involving a statutory bidding preference tied to labor rights.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the City of San Diego's decision to approve an environmental impact report addendum for an urban park project. Affirmed the denial of a citizen group's petition for writ of mandamus.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a general contractor could not proceed with its breach-of-contract and other claims against an insurance company that had issued surety bonds in connection with several federal construction projects. Affirmed dismissal of the general contractor's claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued in connection with a planned retirement community must be revised. The Sierra Club and others argued that the EIR lacked sufficient discussion of the project's air quality impacts. The California Supreme Court's opinion addressed some broad issues regarding judicial review of the adequacy of EIRs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that mediation costs fall within the category of costs that may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed an award to the prevailing party in this construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a citizen group could not proceed with its claims that the City of Los Angeles engaged in a pattern and practice of illegally exempting certain development projects in Venice from permitting requirements contained in the California Coastal Act and the Venice Land Use Plan. Affirmed summary judgment for city.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction business that ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions was subject to withdrawal liability under ERISA's Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a labor union pension fund.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an opinion that clarifies the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court held that only certain causes of action here arose from protected speech. In the underlying dispute, a developer had sued the City of Carson and another developer in connection with negotiations about the possibility of building a National Football League stadium in the city.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a mayor had legislative immunity from claims that he scuttled a low‐income housing project because the prospective developer refused to hire his political ally as a contractor on the project. Affirmed judgment in favor of the mayor and the other defendants.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighboring business was time-barred from challenging a city's approval of an affordable housing project. Affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles could deny landowners' request for approval to undertake a large amount of grading on their parcel of land. Affirmed the denial of the landowners' request for writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Struck down a portion of a city ordinance authorizing development impact fees for parks and recreation. Affirmed the lower court in relevant part, in this case involving California's Mitigation Fee Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived Asian‐owned companies' claims that city employees discriminatorily enforced municipal building codes on the basis of race and personal animus. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees following the settlement of litigation challenging California's attempt to reduce the rate of Medi-Cal reimbursement for healthcare providers by 10 percent. Remanded for further proceedings on the attorney fee request.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the State of Texas should not have been enjoined from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood facilities. Concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review, in this case involving the facilities' alleged noncompliance with accepted medical and ethical standards. Vacated a preliminary injunction 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) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissed claims by a group of chartered schools complaining about school funding practices but the case was vacated and remanded for dismissal because they lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in the first instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.

Quick an easy loans... um... scams.

Manje wants to lend you a lot of money... only at an interest rate of 3%. That is a bargains scam!

Ms Veronica Cordier, a 419 loan offer scammer that's by the book.

Larry the 419 scammer is sorry for invading your privacy.

Mr James Morrison, the Trustfund Loan Lender. Sounds like a 419 superhero.

Mr Larry Smith's rely to our questions.

Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.