(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action challenging defendant Towson University's refusal to allow plaintiff to return to playing football after he suffered a near-death heat-stroke induced coma requiring a liver transplant and additional surgeries, the district court's judgment for plaintiff under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to participate in defendant's football program under defendant's reasonably applied Return-to-Play Policy.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a quarter horse trainer's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, challenged a license suspension and fine imposed upon him by the California Horse Racing Board after finding he violated the Board's regulations by racing horses medicated with a drug that the Board had temporarily suspended from authorized use, the petition is granted where the Board's successive temporary suspensions of the drug violated the provisions of the rule permitting temporary suspension of an authorized drug and thus exceeded the Board's authority.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment against a yoga student's claim that her instructor caused her injury while adjusting her posture during a yoga class. According to the student, the instructor harmed her when he moved her leg, lower back, and neck. On appeal, the California Second Appellate District agreed with the yoga instructor that there was no triable issue as to causation, because the student had offered no evidence conflicting with that of the instructor's experts, who opined that the student's medical issues were unrelated to the yoga class.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this insurance law claim a health insurer contends that the US failed to satisfy its payment obligation under a federal health insurance pool program. The Court of Federal Claims entered judgement for the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment stating that Congress suspended the governments obligation and that subsequent regulation did not create a contract promising full payment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitrator's decision in favor of a builder in a dispute with a community association over alleged defects in construction. The association, consisting of residential condominium units, argued that its arbitration claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment even though the association had filed the claim without first receiving the consent of its members, in violation of its declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Agreeing with the builder, the California Fourth Appellate District affirmed denial of the association's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision.

(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) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(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) - 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 Fifth Circuit) - In a wrongful death lawsuit, revived a claim that a construction company's faulty road repairs resulted in icing that led to a fatal motor vehicle crash. Reversed a summary judgment ruling. Also, addressed a dispute regarding the existence of removal jurisdiction.

(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) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.

BARR. Katie Richardson wants you to contact DR HILARRY NDUBEM. Do not contact any of these swindlers... ever!

The 419 scammers are afraid that they are going to pay your fake fund into the wrong bank account, so they want to make sure if they have the correct banking details... how considerate of them.

A general spammer that tries to throw in everything he can in one e-mail, from flags and banners and PVC printing to mosquito nets and aluminum fold-away wash lines. This spammer is an electronic convenience store!

Mr Larry Smith's rely to our questions.

Mrs Sulak is dying, but she will always stay alive, long enough for someone to reply. That's 419 scam law!

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a mootness ruling in a dispute between two neighbors over the proposed demolition of a Laguna Beach house and its replacement with a new three-story residence. The case involved the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Commission rules.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that adjoining landowners were not entitled to injunctive relief against a company whose manufacturing plant had polluted the groundwater, in an action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for injunctive relief, because state environmental regulators had already sued the company and the two were working together on remedial steps. Affirmed the ruling below.

(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.

(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.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.