(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived businesses' claims that they were sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Reversed a dismissal, in a case raising issues of standing to sue.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a consumer reporting agency lawfully disclosed the plaintiff's decades-old criminal record for battery to a landlord when she applied to rent an apartment. Affirmed summary judgment against her claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar borrowers from pursuing legal relief against an online lending business owned by an Indian tribe. The borrowers contended that the loans had unlawfully high interest rates. Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that recipients of unsolicited spam text messages had legal standing to bring a lawsuit against the company that sent them. Affirmed a ruling in a class action suit under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacating a dismissal and remanding. A student loan borrower's complaints about a loan provider's statements that they needn't seek advice about their borrowing was not expressly preempted because she alleged affirmative misrepresentations, not failures to disclose.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits the use and disclosure of personal information derived from Department of Motor Vehicles records.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a supermarket chain's motion to compel arbitration of three employees' claims. The issue concerned whether alleged violations of state anti-discrimination and retaliation statutes had to be arbitrated under the collective-bargaining agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not force an insured taxi cab company to arbitrate a workers' compensation insurance dispute. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that when a contract delegates to an arbitrator the threshold question of whether a dispute belongs in arbitration, a court must allow the arbitrator to decide the issue, even if the court thinks that the arbitrability claim is wholly groundless. That is, a court may not short-circuit the process by stepping in for the arbitrator. The "wholly groundless" exception is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Supreme Court) - Construed a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act that excludes disputes involving certain transportation workers. The plaintiffs, interstate truck drivers, argued that their wage-hour lawsuit fell within the exclusion, and thus there was no basis to force them into arbitration despite the mandatory arbitration clause in their contract. Agreeing, the Supreme Court also held that the FAA's transportation worker exclusion covers independent contractors. Justice Gorsuch wrote the 8-0 opinion (Justice Kavanaugh took no part).

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that temporary workers assigned to pack produce for a produce company must arbitrate their claims alleging labor law violations, because their staffing firm contract mandated arbitration. It was inconsequential that they chose not to name the staffing firm in their complaint. Reversed and remanded with directions to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that employees alleging wage-hour violations could not be forced to arbitrate claims seeking civil penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, because California law prohibits compelled arbitration of such claims. The employer unsuccessfully raised an argument based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). Affirmed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a real estate firm could not compel arbitration of a home seller's proposed class action lawsuit. The arbitration clause in his residential listing agreement was unenforceable because there was no proof the broker had initialed it. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a former delivery driver for a beverage company did not have to arbitrate his wage-and-hour lawsuit. His case fell within a statutory exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act that applies to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Addressed whether an arbitration agreement could be enforced, given that it was signed only after the employee filed her employment discrimination lawsuit. Reversed and remanded for further findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a store manager complaining of wage-and-hour violations did not have to arbitrate his claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Also, courts may not split a solitary PAGA claim and send only part of it to arbitration. Affirmed the denial of the store's motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a store manager's claims against his former employer must be arbitrated. The arbitration agreement's choice-of-law clause did not alter this conclusion. Reversed the decision below in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that parties do not consent to classwide arbitration if the agreement is ambiguous on that point. An employer sought to block an employee from proceeding with a proposed class action lawsuit and instead force his claims into individual arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the employer had the right to do this, because the arbitration agreement was ambiguous about the availability of classwide arbitration. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration panel award to an attorney in a fee dispute with a corporate client. Held that the client waived its challenge to the panel's composition by failing to object at the time of the arbitration hearing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1981 may be subjected to compulsory arbitration. The plaintiff in this employment discrimination case contended that Section 1981 claims cannot be forced into arbitration. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed an order compelling arbitration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration award in a business dispute involving one company's sale of certain assets to another. Affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a construction contractor waived its right to compel arbitration of a unionized employee's wage-hour claim by waiting too long to file a motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - On rehearing of a dispute between two creditors, held that Louisiana's non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in aid of arbitration. Further held that subject matter jurisdiction existed here under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. On remand from the Supreme Court the panel determined that the parties to an arbitration clause did not clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the district court had the power to make this determination.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that even if Plaintiff’s obesity were an impairment under the ADA, or he suffered from a disabling knee condition, he could not show a causal relationship between these impairments and his termination. Summary judgement in favor of the defendant affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court’s order vacating a registered judgement is reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel credited the district court’s factual findings as logical and well-supported and held that the responsible prison authorities were deliberately indifferent to Edmo’s gender dysphoria, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that unpaid highway tolls are not the type of debt that can support a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). A driver who failed to pay tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike because his electronic payment account was in arrears filed a class-action complaint alleging that a debt collection agency used impermissible means to collect the debt. Affirming dismissal of his complaint, the Third Circuit held that highway tolls are a legal obligation in the nature of a tax that falls outside the scope of the FDCPA.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors of a bankrupt company who claimed they were entitled to dividend payments. The investors, who purchased their shares with notice of the bankruptcy, claimed that the company and several of its officers were liable for failing to pay them a dividend they were owed. Rejecting their arguments, the Third Circuit held that the investors were bound by the reorganization plan, including its releases of liability.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance company that settled claims against a driver arising out of a car crash could bring a contribution suit against a restaurant that allegedly over-served alcoholic beverages to the driver. The restaurant insisted that Pennsylvania's Dram Shop Law subjected it to liability only to injured individuals themselves. However, the Third Circuit concluded that the Dram Shop Law did not prevent the insurance company from bringing a suit against the restaurant under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. The panel therefore reversed dismissal of the insurer's complaint.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Vacated a ruling allocating the costs of cleaning up a contaminated manufacturing site. A successor company brought a contribution action against its predecessor company seeking to recover the costs it had incurred when government regulators forced it to remediate the site. The district court arrived at a percentage method of splitting the costs between the two companies, but on appeal the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors of a bankrupt company who claimed they were entitled to dividend payments. The investors, who purchased their shares with notice of the bankruptcy, claimed that the company and several of its officers were liable for failing to pay them a dividend they were owed. Rejecting their arguments, the Third Circuit held that the investors were bound by the reorganization plan, including its releases of liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in a dispute between two creditors of an agricultural produce company that filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. One of the creditors was another produce company that did business with the debtor. Because the goods were perishable agricultural commodities, the case involved the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an appeal in a matter concerning the bankruptcy of a shipbuilding company. The bankruptcy court's approval of the sale of certain key estate assets was the final word on the subject, when the objector did not obtain a stay of that ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lien contest among creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, held that a bank's lien outranked the agricultural liens of nurseries that sold the farm trees and shrubs. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a shareholder could not seek statutory damages from a creditor after helping a debtor company defend against an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lawsuit that a bankruptcy trustee brought against officers and directors of the debtor company and others who allegedly participated in a securities fraud scheme, affirmed a jury verdict in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that judicial estoppel did not bar a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower retaliation claim. The issue centered on whether the plaintiff employee had attempted to conceal his whistleblower lawsuit from the court in his bankruptcy proceeding. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.