(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing and remanding a claim of wrongful foreclosure in a case arising out of a contentious set of circumstances in which an attorney initiated foreclosure proceedings against a former client who filed a prior action alleging legal malpractice and other wrongdoing, characterizing the loan securing the property as usurious because prior demurrers did not bar the action and did not contravene the rule against splitting a cause of action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a defamation action as it related to out-of-state defendants because Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants excepting defamation actions does not violate the plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights in a case where a media publisher reported on the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing their former Netherlands employer of a kickback operation involving Qaddafi and quoted the employer's statements about him, but reversing and remanding a decision that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim as it related to the employer's statements that he had repeatedly tried to extort money from them to determine whether the implication was indeed defamatory.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a communications company's partnership dispute, arising out of the transfer of partnership assets without compensation, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds the decision to enter summary judgment in defendant's favor on the claim of fraud; and 2) vacated as to judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff's remaining claims where the District Court erred in concluding that tolling of the statute of limitations is categorically inappropriate when a plaintiff has inquiry notice before initiating a books and records action in the Delaware courts.

(Supreme Court of California) - Holding that under California law, a dissolved law firm has no property interest in legal matters handled on an hourly basis and therefore no interest in profits generated by a former partners' work on hourly fee matters pending at the time of dissolution.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action concerning who pays for storm drains, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles's permit conditions are mandated by federal law and that storm drain systems operators are not entitled to state reimbursement under Article XIII B, section 6, subd. (a) of the California Constitution is reversed where the permit conditions are not imposed by any federal law or regulatory system.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a group of electrical power generators and related trade groups could not proceed with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York Public Service Commission's Zero Emissions Credit program, which subsidizes qualifying nuclear power plants by creating state‐issued clean-energy credits. Affirmed a dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision affirming a Department of Commerce ruling in the administrative review of an earlier anti-dumping order, the court held that no error occurred in the determination that a Chinese saw blade manufacturer was seeking to sell their products at less than fair market value in the United States.

(United States First Circuit) - Appeal from a partial summary judgment grant for defendant is dismissed in a trademark and trade-dress case involving a car manufacturer and the manufacturer of replica vehicles where plaintiff's appeal was moot.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board which held certain patent submittals unpatentable and denied plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Patent submittals relates to a method of drilling assistance for dental work and, the Board ruled, were based on previous patents. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. Court of Appeals agreed that certain patent submittals were unpatentable, but vacated the denial of the motion to amend

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an election law action, concerning whether Steven Glickman, a candidate for the state senate, is eligible to run for that office, the Appellate Division's judgment that he was eligible is reversed where Glickman's 2014 registration to vote in Washington, D.C. precludes him as a matter of law from establishing the five years of continuous residency in New York required by the state constitution.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a contracts action arising from a dispute over the auction sale of a syndicated loan, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the lack of a written sales agreement and plaintiffs' failure to submit a timely cash deposit were not conditions precedent to the formation of the parties' contract and do not render their agreement unenforceable.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A correctional facility was not entitled to qualified immunity in a putative class action suit by pretrial detainees that were denied running water and claimed Fourteenth Amendment violations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an class action challenging the NFL's ticketing practices during Super Bowl XLVIII (2014) under a provision of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-35.1, the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed in part and vacated in part where the named plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of constitutional standing required under Article III.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the case of a student football player who took some hard hits and ended up diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because the coach was entitled to qualified immunity and there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a jury trail against the town.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal of a second amended complaint in a lawsuit alleging defamation and deceit related to parents' complaints about a baseball team coach because the grievance, filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, failed to satisfy the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.