(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) - 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) - Affirmed the issuance of mutual restraining orders in a case where a divorced, elderly couple had been involved in a series of incidents. The husband had appealed from the restraining orders.

(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 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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. The Appeals court held that the current policy of the California Department of Social Services treating court-ordered child support as income and using the same funds twice as income for both the paying household and the receiving household does not violate the Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5.

(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.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an interlocutory appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Title VII complaint alleging religious discrimination, judgment is reversed where the plain language of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-1(a) bars plaintiff's claims.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - District Court affirmance of bankruptcy court order confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plan of nonprofit public charity is vacated and case remanded where: 1) bankruptcy court did not make specific factual findings explaining why it approved and included certain release, injunction, and exculpation provisions applicable to nondebtors; and 2) appeal was not equitably moot.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an unlawful detainer action between two non-profit religious organizations, trial court's order compelling defendant's pastor, who was not a party to the action, to sign the written settlement agreement in his individual capacity, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the parties' oral settlement agreement did not require the pastor to release any personal claims against the plaintiff or sign a written agreement purportedly conforming to the oral settlement in his individual capacity; and 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the pastor.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought under 45 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring plaintiff to disclose the names and contributions of the it's "significant donors" on Internal Revenue Form 990 Schedule B, which plaintiff must file with the state in order to maintain its registered status with the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the disclosure requirement did not injure plaintiff's exercise of the First Amendment rights to freedom of association; and 2) the disclosure requirement is not preempted by Congress for privacy purposes under 26 U.S.C. section 6104, part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by two nonprofit organizations challenging the California Attorney General's collection of IRS Form 990 Schedule B forms, containing identifying information for their major donors, under California's Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act, Cal. Gov't Code section 12584, the district court's preliminary injunction for plaintiffs is modified to prohibit making the information public but permit defendant to keep collecting the data for enforcement

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute over the control of two nonprofit entities associated with the Sikh Dharma religious community, the district court's dismissal of the claims, as foreclosed by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, is vacated where: 1) based only on the pleadings, the claims were not barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception; and 2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the claims could be resolved by application of neutral principles of law without encroaching on religious organizations' right of autonomy in matters of religious doctrine and administration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the constitutionality of California's requirement that charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of certain large contributors. Two nonprofit organizations contended that the disclosure requirement infringed their First Amendment right to free association. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the disclosure requirement survived exacting constitutional scrutiny because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The panel reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the state's favor.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a parochial school's claim that its students were being denied state‐funded bus transportation equivalent to public-school students, contrary to Wisconsin law and the Equal Protection Clause. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright action, arising from defendant's infringement of plaintiff's photos of the hip hop group Run-DMC for use on t-shirts and a calendar, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Live Nation Merchandise is reversed where: 1) there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's infringement was willful; and 2) plaintiff could prevail upon a showing that defendant knew that copyright management information had been removed from the photos.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute arising out of a written agreement between a content producer-plaintiff and a television station-defendant, involving website material plaintiff created that was to be distributed to the websites of certain television stations affiliated with defendant in other cities, alleging the common law tort of misappropriation of name and likeness, defendant's petition for writ of mandate is granted where the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to defendant because based on the broad consent in the agreement, plaintiffs cannot prove lack of consent to the manner in which defendant used plaintiff's material.

(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).

(United States Second Circuit) - In a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a former on-air radio personality's action for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related employment claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to employer-defendant is reversed where material issues of fact exist regarding each of plaintiff's claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an amended opinion involving a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a copyright infringement suit brought by the company that owns the recordings of the Turtles, a well-known rock band with a string of hits in the 1960s, on behalf of itself and a class of owners of pre-1972 recordings against largest radio and internet-radio broadcaster in the U.S., the district court's denial of defendant's motions for summary judgment and reconsideration is reversed where, in response to questions certified to the New York Court of Appeals, New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rejection of First Amendment violation claims brought by an exotic dancing venue complaining that a city regulates sexually oriented businesses differently than it does mainstream performances such as ballets and concerts, that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by barring 18 to 21 year olds from owning sexually oriented businesses, but finding that the district court erred in rejecting a claim that the denial provisions of the licensing regulation are an unconstitutional prior restraint, striking this provision from the Ordinance and remanding to consider its severability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded for retrial. Defendant killed a grizzly bear that was harassing his horses in Montana and was convicted of violating the Endangered Species Act. The 9th Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard when it should have applied a subjective belief standard as to the defendant's claim of self-defense.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a movie studio breached its collective-bargaining agreement with musicians who score motion pictures. The musicians' labor union contended that the movie studio breached the labor agreement by having the film Same Kind of Different As Me scored in Slovakia, rather than hiring union musicians in the U.S. and Canada. Finding genuine disputes of material fact, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the movie studio and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that Louisiana statutes requiring certain erotic dancers at nightclubs to be 21 years of age or older was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. Vacated a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statutes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff represented deceased celebrity, Jenni Rivera, and they sought to restrict disclosure by Defendant broadcaster of certain information. Appeals court ruled the First Amendment protected broadcaster’s use of information and reversed trial court order.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark suit brought by a provider of healthcare services against a provider of digital health-related content, the District Court's injunction which prohibited defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area, but placed no restriction on defendant's use of its marks on the Internet or outside plaintiff's service area, is affirmed but remanded for expansion of the injunction's scope, where the current limitations placed on defendant were based on an incorrect standard and fail to give plaintiff and the public adequate protection from likely confusion.

(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition filed by Adidas, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's final judgment cancelling a Church's trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before registering them, on the grounds of the Church's de minimus sale of two marked hats to an out-of-state reside, is reversed where: 1) the Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; and 2) the Church's sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a trademark dispute in which no written contract designates ownership, involving the paradigm through which common law ownership of an unregistered trademark is determined when the initial sale of goods bearing the mark is between a manufacturer and its exclusive distributor, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds as to ownership, where the court failed to recognize and apply the rebuttable presumption of manufacturer ownership that pertains where priority of ownership is not otherwise established; 2) affirmed as to fraud and acquiescence; and 3) vacated and remanded on damages under the Lanham Act, where the court incorrectly relied on gross sales unadjusted to reflect sales of infringing products to calculate damages.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of Fox, holding that their use of the name 'Empire' was protected by the First Amendment and therefore was outside of the reach of the Lanham Act and their use of the word as a show title did not infringe on a record label's trademark rights.