(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private citizen cannot sue one State in the courts of another. Overruled Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which had held that a State may grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity as it chooses. The plaintiff here sought to bring a tort suit against a California state agency in Nevada state court. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution barred the suit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements that promote free goods, such as no-cost magazine subscriptions and catalogs. The specific issue here had to do with whether the district court was required to adopt the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it found the question difficult to answer, and remanded with directions for the lower courts to resolve two preliminary issues. Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Aside from a few wild guesses, Izuku had no idea how this had happened. But here he was, about to bear All Might's child, and all he could think to blame it on was a jar of rice.

RT @VanityFair: Trumpworld's campaign to blame China for creating the coronavirus is ramping up—even as the U.S. intelligence community and WHO insist otherwise

via Criticidades https://ift.tt/1RabwUr

Important new CitizenLab report: "We Chat, They Watch: How International Users Unwittingly Build up WeChat’s Chinese Censorship Apparatus"

"Give your video calls a makeover, with this selection of over 100 empty sets from the BBC Archive." Very good. (via @wonderlandblog)

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The conviction of a man involved in defrauding arms manufacturers into selling machinegun and laser sights restricted by law for law enforcement and military use was affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Finding the crime described in Article 129 of South Korea’s Criminal Code fits squarely within the definition of “bribing a public official” from 18 U.S.C. Section 1956, the indictment was sufficient and there was no instructional error.

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0653

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from a judgment affirming a medical malpractice arbitration award in favor of defendant, judgment is reversed and remanded, where the California Arbitration Act and the California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitrations require that: 1) a neutral arbitrator disclose that a lawyer in the arbitration is a member of the administering "dispute provider resolution organization"; and 2) section 1286.2 (a)(6) compels a trial court to vacate the arbitration award if the arbitrator fails to disclose that information.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment for nonsuit. Plaintiff, a juvenile, sued Department of Children and Family Services for sexual abuse while she was in foster care. Trial court granted nonsuit because Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from criminal actions of third parties. Appeals court affirmed, but modified cost award.

(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal by corporate officers found to be personally responsible for causing their corporation to shirk its payroll tax obligations, the district court grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where: 1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and 2) both plaintiffs were responsible persons during the relevant quarters, and each of them acted wilfully in failing to see to the payment of the corporation's overdue and current trust fund taxes.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The trial court's determination that the County Board of Supervisors' elimination of a longtime county Solid Waste Enforcement Officer's position was retaliation was upheld. The employee was running for sheriff as an Independent and the Board preferred Democrats.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development did not fail to reasonably accommodate an employee that had previously taken advantage of a telecommute policy following hand surgery when, following restructuring and performance deficiencies, they revoked her telecommute privileges.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a U.S. Tax Court decision, held that the former sole shareholder of a company that received a $65 million litigation settlement was liable for the taxes, and in particular the pre-notice interest component, despite having entered into a tax-shelter transaction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case dealing with the issue of whether California's franchise tax applies to an out-of-state corporation whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company (LLC) investment fund, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute 'doing business' in California within the meaning of Rev. & Tax. Code section 23101.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part where a jury found that defendant had infringed on plaintiff's patents and had awarded damages based on the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the infringement judgment, but vacated the damages award stating that the entire market value rule could not be used in this case.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(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) - In a case challenging California's "Shark Fin Law," which makes it "unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer of sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin" in the state, the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint is affirmed where the claim that the Shark Find Law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act is without merit, as plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between federal authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage shark fishing in the ocean off the California coast and the California Shark Fin Law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The proper scope of judicial review of a school district’s decision is an independent judicial review. Such a review requires a hearing and making specific factual findings. The appeals court remanded for reconsideration of the writ petition under correct standards.

New Happy Song "Your Turn Me All Around" By CHICAGOBOY Out Now

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

Friday on MSNBC's "The Beat," House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Attorney General Bill Barr's Justice Department doing President Donald Trump's "dirty work" by dropping the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was an attempt to "gaslight history."

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,

As the globe contends with the coronavirus pandemic, still looming large now more than ever is the threat posed by Communist China, which is something Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) warns should not be taken lightly.

Friday on Fox News Channel's "Your World," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) argued when determining how and whether or not China was responsible for coronavirus global pandemic, it was undeniable China allowed the virus to spread beyond its borders.

Friday, Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson called on Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to resign given how the saga regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has unfolded, calling the California Democrat a "sociopath."

A 77-year-old Michigan barber said he won't stop working "unless he is tasered by the police or Jesus Christ himself walks in" and will continue defying Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's executive orders.

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. adults say China bears responsibility for American coronavirus deaths, a Morning Consult tracker poll released Friday revealed.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action complaint against the developer of a mobile video game entitled 'Game of War: Fire Age', pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), asserting a claim under Maryland's gambling loss recovery statute (Loss Recovery Statute), Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law section 12-110, alleging plaintiffs lost money participating in an unlawful 'gaming device,' a component of Game of War that allows players to 'spin' a virtual wheel to win virtual prizes for use within that video game, and seeking recovery of gambling losses that players incurred as a result of 'spinning' the virtual wheel, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff did not 'lose money' within the meaning of the Loss Recovery Statute as a result of her participation in the Game of War casino, and thus she failed to state a claim under Maryland's Loss Recovery Statute.