(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which a street performer-plaintiff and her friend, both dressed in 'sexy cop' costumes, posed with pedestrians on the Las Vegas Strip and accepted tips in exchange for photos, alleging plaintiff was unlawfully arrested for conducting business without a license, in violation of her First Amendment rights, the district court's summary judgment in favor of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers is reversed in part where: 1) the full First Amendment protections accorded to plaintiff's own activities did not lapse because of what her friend said or did without plaintiff's direct participation; and 2) plaintiff associated with her friend only for expressive activity protected under Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F. 3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and the district court erred by deciding that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff despite the First Amendment protections afforded to her expressive association.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated an injunction that prevented a movie producer from releasing a film about the rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. Held that a consent order settling a 1988 lawsuit concerning band members' rights to make films about the band did not support the issuance of an injunction here.

Almost all of the world's cruise ships have formed ghost fleets with their crews trapped aboard

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26

There's been a meme going round that women leaders have dealt better with coronavirus. I don't think that's right: women aren't better, it's just that strongmen are worse.

The complaint that Washington is out of step with Main Street has been circulating for roughly as long as each metonym has been in use. But it’s seldom, if ever, been more true than at this moment in the coronavirus pandemic.

If the authorities can’t satisfy the public’s desire to know more, others will fill the void with misinformation. Carl Bergstrom, professor of biology at the UW, is mentioned.

Six weeks ago, Ahmaud Arbery went out and never came home. Gregory and Travis McMichael, who saw Arbery running through their neighborhood just outside of Brunswick, Georgia, and who told authorities they thought he was a burglary suspect, armed themselves, pursued Arbery, and then shot him dead.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

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

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

MICHAEL Clarke will be targeted by Parramatta’s bowling attack when the former Australian cricket captain plays at Old Kings Oval on Saturday.

(Supreme Court of California) - The offense of felonious possession or control of child pornography involves moral turpitude in every case, and as such, the State Bar Review Department's proposed discipline for the subject attorney who pled guilty to said offense is rejected, and the attorney is disbarred from the practice of law.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action in which plaintiff alleges that defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court's judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is 1) affirmed in part, where: (a) a defendant can be liable for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty without owing the plaintiff a fiduciary duty; (b) the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is three or four years depending whether the breach is fraudulent or non-fraudulent; (c) the restitutionary remedy of disgorgement is available for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (d) the measure of restitution for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is the net profit attributable to the wrong; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where defendants are entitled to a new trial on the amount of defendants' unjust enrichment. (Opinion on Rehearing)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03439 Index No. 85053/20

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(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) - Affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. An employee bringing a Private Attorney General’s Act claim may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of the claim that seeks to recover underpaid wages.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. Partial enforcement to produce discovery documents in an equal protection claim vacated, where Plaintiffs did not have standing. There is no legally protected interest under which the board members of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority can assert a claim over disparate treatment compared to other municipalities regarding the passage of S.B. 2162.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify another party's counsel in longstanding litigation over groundwater rights. Stressed the movant's long delay in seeking disqualification, in this case where counsel allegedly had a conflict of interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a lawsuit to unwind a public water agency's acquisition of all of the stock of a retail water purveyor within its territory, the trial court's order refusing to unwind the transaction is affirmed where: 1) the streamlined procedures available for validating certain acts of public agencies, Code Civ. Proc.section 860 et seq., are inapplicable; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the purveyor did not become the agency's alter ego in this case; and 3) the agency did not violate article XVI, section 17.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action against a Water District challenging the method used by District to calculate wastewater service 'fees or charges' between about 2012 and 2014, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant, holding that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under article XIII D of the California Constitution, is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' class action is not barred by their failure to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in section 6 because plaintiffs' substantive challenge involving the method used by District to calculate its wastewater service fees or charges is outside the scope of the administrative remedies; and 2) under the facts of this case, those remedies are, in any event, inadequate.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the federal government was time-barred from seeking civil penalties against two electric power companies that allegedly violated the Clean Air Act by failing to obtain a statutorily mandated preconstruction permit for the modification of their facilities. Also held, however, that the government still could pursue injunctive relief, and thus reversed the dismissal of the government's complaint in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit between Taiwanese and Japanese companies whose contract had nothing at all to do with California, but still named it as the forum for the resolution of disputes, because it was not an abuse of discretion when the court determined that suitable alternative forums exist and California had no interest in the suit.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.