(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of claims brought by a monkey, the continuation of the fascinating Monkey Selfie suit, holding that while the monkey had constitutional standing to bring suit, he lacked statutory standing to claim copyright infringement because the Copyright Act doesn't expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of attorney's fees in a copyright infringement case. A man agreed to pay $750 in statutory damages to a film production company for illegally downloading a movie using a peer-to-peer network and distributing it 80 times, and the parties agreed that the court would decide whether to award attorney's fees. When the court denied fees, the production company appealed. Agreeing with the company, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court failed to correctly apply certain factors in deciding whether to award attorney fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a textile company's copyright infringement claims accusing certain competitors of illegally copying its floral lace designs. Reversed dismissals.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a company surveying the ocean floor was properly apportioned 75 percent of the liability for an accident in which its underwater sonar device struck an offshore drilling rig's mooring line. The remaining 25 percent of the liability was allocated to the operator of the chartered vessel that was pulling the sonar device. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a citizen group's claim that a city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove more than 250 trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed an order sustaining the city's demurrer, in relevant part.

(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 Second Circuit) - Held that a bunker (marine fuel) supplier was not entitled to maritime liens against two chartered vessels to which it had physically provided marine fuel for which it was not paid. Affirmed the district court, in a case raising the question whether subcontractors were entitled to maritime liens.

(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) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by operators of recycling centers where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their California Redemption Value, against companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, contending that defendants knowingly and "falsely" label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with "CA CRV," "California Redemption Value," or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California, and alleging common law tort claims against defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, and breach of express warranty, the trial court's judgment of dismissal is affirmed where the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded by a California court because it would violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. An Americans with Disabilities Act claim should not have been dismissed at the summary judgment phase because there were issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially vacated, otherwise affirmed, and remanded. The dismissal of breach of contract claims were vacated, but judgments dismissing civil conspiracy claims and refusal to submit punitive damages claims to a jury were affirmed in a case involving disputes over discounts to charges for physical therapy patients covered by workers' compensation insurance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant failed to pay them for their work growing marijuana as agreed under a contract. Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. The trial court ordered Plaintiff to take the Defendant’s default by a specified date. The default was taken. Defendant then sought to set-aside the default. The trial court denied relief. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion finding that the Defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint was knowing and deliberate.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissal of a class action complaint alleging false statements contained in a merger agreement with a third party company is affirmed where the plaintiff has not pled facts that would either directly or indirectly give rise to a strong inference of scienter on the part of those officers responsible for making the false statements contained in the merger agreement.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In plaintiffs' breach of contract case against United States, acting through the FDIC, the Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed in part, revered in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed as to jurisdiction, liability, and the assessment of damages for lost value in the amount of $276 million, net of the receivership deficit, and with an appropriate tax gross-up; 2) judgments as to the award of $67 million in non-overlapping restitution damages and as cumulative the award of wounded bank damages of $28 million are reversed; and 3) dismissal of intervenors' claims relating to the liquidation surplus is reversed and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee of a corporation and the subsidiaries it had acquired in related leveraged buy-outs, seeking to recover payments the shareholders of the acquired corporations had received for their shares on the grounds that the payments to them had been fraudulent transfers avoidable under Delaware law and the Bankruptcy Code, grant of shareholders' motion to dismiss is affirmed as, in accordance with prior case law, the payments were exempt settlement payments under section 546(e).

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract based on defendant's refusal to allow certain of its noteholders to convert their notes to cash and stock following the acquisition of defendant, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under the express terms of the indenture agreement, the acquirer was not a "Public Acquirer" because its securities that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange were not its ordinary shares.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming that Cingular Wireless, after its merger with AT&T, disregarded its obligations under plaintiff's phone service contract with AT&T by failing to provide adequate service coverage and requiring plaintiff to sign a different contract with defendant if he desired to get the service that AT&T had contracted to provide under the first agreement, and that Cingular misrepresented and omitted key facts about the consequence of the merger to the FCC, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) "all the advantages that only the nation's largest wireless company can provide" was a vague statement and provided nothing concrete upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely; 2) plaintiff failed to allege that he actually read or heard the alleged misrepresentations; and 3) violations of the common law of unfair competition and breach of contract did not alone violate California's Unfair Competition Law. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim that Cingular breached its contract with him.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a proceeding under Article IV, Section 11(8) of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 41 on a question of law certified to the Delaware Supreme Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court answers the certified question as follows: plaintiffs in a double derivative action under Delaware law who were pre-merger shareholders in the acquired company and who were current shareholders, by virtue of a stock-for-stock merger in the post-merger parent company, need not also demonstrate that at the time of the alleged wrongdoing at the acquired company: (a) they owned stock in the acquiring company, and (b) the acquiring company owned stock in the acquired company.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an en banc review of the Court of Federal Claims ruling against the government in a suit on behalf of shareholders of a failing bank that merged with a solvent bank, alleging that the government breached its contracts with the acquiring bank, jurisdiction was properly exercised by the Court of Federal Claims, as; 1) when a government agency is asserted to have breached an express or implied contract that it entered on behalf of the United States, there is Tucker Act jurisdiction of the cause unless such jurisdiction was explicitly withheld or withdrawn by statute, and 2) the jurisdictional foundation of the Tucker Act is not limited by the appropriation status of the agency's funds or the source of funds by which any judgment may be paid.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a shareholder derivative action against officers and directors of Countrywide Financial Corporations, alleging that defendants had mismanaged the company's mortgage lending business and other claims, trial court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) pursuant to the continuous ownership rule, plaintiff had no standing to maintain shareholder derivative claims on behalf of Countrywide after its acquisition by Bank of America Corporation and merger into another corporation; and 2) Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v Caiafa cannot be read to support plaintiff's contention that he has adequately alleged a factual basis for application of the fraud exception to the continuous ownership rule based on dicta in that case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that two merging companies both breached an asset purchase agreement. The buyer and seller each argued that the other party had breached their agreement. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the seller's breach of certain post-closing obligations did not excuse the buyer from its obligation to pay the full purchase price, because these covenants were independent. The appeals court therefore reversed denial of the seller's JNOV motion.

Latido Music, The Premiere 24-hour Digital Television Network Dedicated To Latin Music, Has Announced The Formation Of Its Advisory Board

Each Playlist Is Categorized By GENRE So You Can Easily Contact The Curators

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a former deputy constable may not proceed with his whistleblower retaliation and equal-protection claims. Some were barred by res judicata and others by qualified immunity. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed trial court’s judgment and order denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Defendants were tenants of a commercial property that was subject to eminent domain. When the court for the eminent domain action, awarded Defendants for their loss, Plaintiff filed suit to recover Defendant’s eminent domain award. The trial court held that when a business owner’s property is taken by eminent domain their compensation is separate and apart from property owners interests.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court granted City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued City for injuries from tripping and falling over a defective sidewalk. The trial court ruled that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory. Defendant challenged his convictions in part based on Senate Bill 1437 that amended the felony-murder rule. The appeals court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief, but that relief could be available to other defendants by petitioning their trial courts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a pre-election trial court ruling that held that certain initiates were invalid and that the County of San Bernardino was excused from the duty to prepare ballot titles and summaries for them.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

The Techno Artist And DJ Known As 01100110 Has Released His Latest EP Album, “Seaside Hollows” On His New Record Label “Elektroakustische Tanzmusik.”

LA Based Electro Duo Divine Astronaut Announce The Launch Of Their New Musical Act With A Teaser Video Of Their Upcoming Single Release ‘Undone’.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court order decertifying a class action relating to an alleged aphrodisiac called 'Cobra Sexual Energy' because the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class on the basis of the plaintiff's inability to prove restitution damages through the full refund model because plaintiff's damages model matched his theory of liability and because his damages model was supportable on evidence that could be introduced on trial and whether plaintiff could provide damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full refund model was a question of fact to be decided at trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consumer protection class action, alleging that various defendants' prescription eye drop medications come with a bottle dropper tip that dispenses too much medication in one drop, thereby wasting medication and causing plaintiffs undue economic hardship, the district court's dismissal is reversed where plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury in fact to confer Article III standing under to bring their various state law claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, the district court's judgment for plaintiff Bayer is reversed where it clearly erred in determining that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to create an oral disintegrating tablet version of an erectile dysfunction drug using specified sugar alcohols with the tablet formulated for immediate-release.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense's sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none of the patents were invalid for obviousness.