(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action concerning a property lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation, seeking damages for the son's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring that the lease and joint venture agreement were void, the District Court's rulings denying the son's discovery requests and granting summary judgment to corporate-plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste; and 2) the parol evidence rule applies in this case and the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect, thus the purported joint venture agreement is unenforceable.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying petitions for review challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's authority to issue permits for US long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granted writ of mandate and directed trial court to vacate order granting summary adjudication motion. The appeals court held that the trial court’s per se application of Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the contract in question was incorrect.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(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) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

We have a friend from Flipora, which we did not know we had... Oh sorry our mistake, iyaloo27@gmail.com is not our friend, he/she is a spammer and spammers are our enemy.

Another lame attempt at defrauding honest tax-paying South Africans. These phishing scammers could have at least used a better logo in their e-mail.

Poorly formatted, fake UPS Shipping service report, including malware.

Cleverly disguised WebCam Spam from MySafeStreams.com

Malware delivered via a link in a fake DHL Notification e-mail.

A fake Amazon order report, with a touch of false anti-virus peace of mind...

The most confusing Paypal phishing scam ever!

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

All of today's top pop music news stories

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Plaintiff, SEC, filed suit against Defendant for failure to register interests in oil and gas drilling projects as securities. District court granted SEC motion for summary judgement. Appeals court revered and remanded because Defendant had raised several issues of material fact that the district court failed to consider.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Investors who alleged that Pier 1 Imports was a trend-based fashion retailer with inventory that carried a significant markdown risk they failed to disclose were unable to adequately plead scienter.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's judgment denying the petition to confirm a Brazilian arbitral award is vacated and remanded, where the district court decided that the parties' dispute was beyond the scope of their arbitration agreement, without first determining whether the parties had agreed to an arbitration clause that clearly and unmistakably assigned to an arbitral panel, rather than to the court, any questions about the scope of their arbitration agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court conclusion in a putative securities class action relating to a corporate merger that the Securities Exchange Act does not create a private right of action for shareholders confronted with a tender offer and dismissing the complaint as to one defendant, who was not a proper defendant, holding that the Exchange Act requires a showing of negligence rather than scienter for the claims brought, and remanding for the district court to reconsider the defense motion to dismiss under the negligence standard.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. Plaintiff sued seeking to expand its primary runway. The district court ruled that Plaintiff lacked standing to invalidate a Connecticut statute prohibiting the expansion, but even if it had standing the Federal Aviation Act did not preempt the statute. The appeals court disagreed and reversed and remanded for an entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment for the defense in a diversity action brought by doctors alleging claims arising from their assignment of patents to the company that it failed to develop into FDA-approved drugs because the jury instructions were not improper and the verdict wasn't against the clear weight of the evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of an interference claim for lack of standing and remanding for further proceedings because the description of a method for removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles was a sufficient written description under the Patent Act because although the description only gave optical density rather than particles per ml, this was enough of a disclosure to convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.

As the United States faces meat shortages in the wake of the coronavirus, exports of pork and other proteins to China have soared.

Acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli says border crossers are being almost immediately returned to Mexico after their crossing into the United States. 

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that vote by mail provisions “will be a very important part of the legislation that we’re going to put forward, and we are going to fight

President Donald Trump's re-election campaign blasted California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) executive order allowing registered voters in the state to vote by mail in the November election, calling it a "thinly-veiled political tactic" aimed at undermining election security. 

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher discussed the sexual assault allegations made by Tara Reade against 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden and stated that the matter is a he said, she said,

For the first time in eight weeks, Hawaii has reported no new statewide cases of COVID-19, leaving the total case count since the beginning of the pandemic at 629.

Robot dogs named "Spot" have reportedly been dispatched to parks in Singapore to remind citizens of safe social distancing measures. 

Mexican health officials admitted to surpassing 3,100 COVID-19 related-deaths as cases continue to rise nationwide. The reports come despite repeated accusations of the government downplaying the true scope of the coronavirus pandemic

(United States Supreme Court) - Declaring a writ of certiorari petition moot in the case of Microsoft's attempt to avoid providing emails pursuant to a Government warrant investigating the drug trade because a new warrant was issued under a new law that, unlike the old version, permitted the Government to demand emails stored on overseas datacenters under Trump's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act.

(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.