(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a dispute over ownership of a lucrative YouTube channel, held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in dismissing a nondiverse partnership as dispensable. Also affirmed a judgment entered on a jury verdict.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a political cartoonist and blogger could not proceed with his lawsuit alleging that a newspaper wrongfully terminated his employment and also defamed him by telling its readers that it had serious questions about the accuracy of one of his blog posts. Affirmed the granting of the newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a business owner contributorily infringed copyrighted photographs by displaying them on his website. However, remanded for further proceedings on whether the infringement was willful.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived claims that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's woefully inadequate cybersecurity practices enabled hackers to steal personal data about millions of past and present federal employees. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and others arising out of a 2014 cyberattack.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order granting probation with amendments. Defendant admitted to acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud. The trial court placed Defendant on probation with various terms and conditions. Defendant appealed the conditions. Appeals court affirmed, but struck certain fees.

NOËP Releases Debut EP ‘Heads In The Clouds’, On His Own Label Noep Music OÜ, Alongside Its Vinyl Pre-sale

CW Is Also The Founder And DJ Of ‘Mo’ Money’ Events At Marbella’s Elite Olivia Valere Night Club Since 2015

French Native Songstress Ned Released Her Debut UK Single ‘Give Me More’ On 6th April 2018

ASM Completes Its 150th Film Score And Retains Jonathan Firstenberg As North American Rep

UK Singer/songwriter Ben Hobbs Teams Up With Grammy Nominees Catherine Duc And Gene Grimaldi On His Latest Remix

(United States Supreme Court) - Holding that a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual claim, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations and reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a District Court dismissal of an untimely class complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the amount in controversy in an employee class action was too low for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). An employer that had been sued for allegedly violating wage-hour laws, and that removed the case to federal court under CAFA, argued that the district court erred in remanding the case to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the employer that, in assessing the amount in controversy, the district court should have included future attorney fees recoverable by statute or contract. The panel therefore reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the district court erred in remanding a class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act's local-controversy exception. The plaintiff argued that her wage-hour class action against a fast-food chain belonged in state court because more than two-thirds of the putative class members were California citizens. Unconvinced, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for additional discovery regarding how many former employees had moved to other states, among other things.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of class certification in an action alleging wage and hour violations, finding substantial evidence that individual questions would predominate and also that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the class-action device was not the proper one for home health care assistants to use in seeking refunds of fair-share fees they had paid to a union for collective-bargaining representation. Affirmed the denial of class certification, on reconsideration following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Golden Gate Bridge toll-collecting system belonged in state court. Affirmed the remand of the case to state court after it was removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. The suit principally alleged unlawful collection of personal data.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a debt collector could cure its failure to use a minimum type-size in consumer collection letters. However, this did not justify the dismissal of the entire class action complaint here. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a car purchaser did not raise a triable issue that a dealership failed to provide customers promised add-ons. Also addressed an issue under the Class Action Fairness Act relating to removal jurisdiction. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an engineering company could not proceed with a class action lawsuit alleging that its former concrete supplier unlawfully recorded cellular phone users' calls without their consent. Affirmed an order decertifying the class on the ground that the class representative lacked individual standing.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The district court improperly dismissed a lawsuit in which a woman's credit card number and expiration date were printed on a receipt for lack of standing. The risk of identity theft was sufficient injury to support standing.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

Rocking Horse Music Club Presents The Music Of Anthony Phillips Feat. Guest Appearances By Steve Hackett, John Hackett, Nick Magnus, Kate St. John, John Helliwell & Others.

Available On 12-inch Vinyl, CD Single And Digitally.

The Music Artist Known As Donna Cristy Has Released Her Latest Single, “Lies Wit My Shake.”

The Afrobeat/Afrorap Genre’s Rise Has Really Gone On Leaps And Bounds Over The Last Few Years.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an indigent defendant facing misdemeanor charges was constitutionally entitled to the help of appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal. She had successfully moved to suppress evidence related to driving under the influence. The California Supreme Court agreed with her that she had the right to appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal of the suppression order.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreting the state's anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court addressed whether the commercial nature of a defendant's speech is relevant in determining whether that speech merits protection. Reversing, the high court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable here to a dispute between two companies over what one said about the other's business practices.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a death judgment imposed on a man who murdered a peace officer.

(Supreme Court of California) - Clarified the procedure for challenging a local governmental agency's decision to impose or increase property-related fees. The question in this case involving a wastewater service charge had to do with whether the plaintiff must first raise the issue when the agency holds a public hearing on the matter.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Vacate order and remand. The trial court denied Plaintiff access to ballistics evidence used at his trial to file a habeas corpus petition. The trial court believed that Penal Code section 1054.9 prohibited such a release of evidence. The Supreme court disagreed stating that section 1054.9 referred to physical evidence held by the prosecutor, not evidence held by the court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant was placed on probation for felony burglary. As a condition of his parole, he was required to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices, even though they were not used in connection with the burglaries. The appeals court struck the electronics search condition. The Supreme Court agreed stating the search of electronic devices was overbroad.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

“Bright Light,” The New Single From Pastor, Singer/songwriter And Entertainer Norman Lee Schaffer Is Releasing To Christian Country-formatted Radio Outlets Today.

Halo On The Radio Will Broadcast For Three Hours, Seven Days A Week.

Cherie Oakley, The Breakthrough Country Performer And Writer Behind A Billboard #1 On Reba McEntire, Lands Her Debut Single Work It On Radio Disney Country.

“Joyful Sounds” Was First Broadcast In 1982. Founder Rob Green Also Hosts The “Gospel Country” Radio Show And Operates Christian Music Weekly Magazine.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bank's breach-of-contract lawsuit against another bank should not have been dismissed on timeliness grounds. Also addressed choice‐of‐law issues. Remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a dispute involving an agreement to purchase power from a wind turbine farm was outside the scope of the parties' arbitration clause. Reversed an order compelling arbitration, in this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of a contractual provision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.