(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(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 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) - Held that a city was entitled to invoice the National Lawyers Guild for certain costs incurred in complying with the Guild’s requests for production of documents under the California Public Records Act, including billing for the time that city employees spent redacting police body camera videos.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an organization may not proceed with its defamation action alleging reputational harm from an article published in an American Bar Association law journal. The author's statements were non-actionable expressions of opinion. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by the former CEO of American Apparel whose employment was terminated following an investigation into allegations that he engaged in various types of misconduct, alleging several causes of action rooted in plaintiff's claim that the press release announcing his termination contained false and defamatory information about him, the trial court's grant of defendant's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where plainitiff did not satisfy his burden of showing there was a minimal chance his claims would succeed at trial.

(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 consumer could not proceed with a proposed class action challenging electricity rates in the wake of market deregulation. Affirmed summary judgment against his breach of contract, unfair trade practice and other claims alleging that a retail electricity supplier charged unlawful rates.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a US Court of International Trade final decision denying a motion for summary judgment to a company and granting a government cross motion for summary judgment because the court agreed with the Customs and Border Patrol's classification of the plaintiff's subject imports finding that the articles at issue, decorative plates and mugs, weren't eligible for duty free treatment.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that a maritime lien had been extinguished by laches in a case where a Cypriot fuel supplier sought to enforce its lien against a Maltese company's vessel. In affirming the lower court's finding that the lien was barred by laches, the Second Circuit also recognized that federal courts have jurisdiction to declare a maritime lien unenforceable, even where the vessel is not present in the district, so long as its owner consents to adjudication of rights in the lien and the court also found no need for abstention on the basis of international comity, even though an in-rem proceeding was pending in Panama regarding the same lien.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a trademark dispute concerning a computer table, defendant did not engage in "reverse passing off" when it incorporated some of plaintiff's hardware into a sample table that it presented to potential purchasers.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, brought by plaintiff insurance companies seeking declaratory relief, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where Insurance Law section 5102 does not require no-fault insurance carriers to pay a facility fee to reimburse New York State-accredited office-based surgery centers for the use of their facilities and related support services.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. In a case involving people attempting to adopt Indian children and challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the plaintiffs had standing but were not entitled to summary judgment. Judgment was rendered to the defendant US government, its agencies, and Indian tribes.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant was placed on probation for felony burglary. As a condition of his parole, he was required to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices, even though they were not used in connection with the burglaries. The appeals court struck the electronics search condition. The Supreme Court agreed stating the search of electronic devices was overbroad.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action by an African American seeking to establish disparate-impact discrimination in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)'s policy of excluding anyone with a felony conviction from coaching at NCAA-certified youth athletic tournaments, the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where even if disparate-impact claims were recognizable under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiff had not shown that an equally effective, less discriminatory alternative theory to the NCAA's felon-exclusion policy existed, as was required under the three-step analysis for disparate-impact claims set forth in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a consumer's proposed class action lawsuit against a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. Held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not preempt the consumer's California law claims that the company made false or misleading statements about the source of the protein in one of its muscle-building products. Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by several African-American college basketball players that their head coach had engaged in race-based discrimination and retaliation. The players claimed that the coach reduced their playing time, afforded them fewer opportunities, punished them more severely and otherwise favored their teammates of other races. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part on their claims under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Army and dismissing the private party's claims for contract reformation and breach of contract in the case of a marina on land leased from the Army that was rendered unusable for a period of time while the Army reduced the water level of a lake to repair a dam.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a decision of the Contractors' State License Board finding that a large contracting company violated California law by failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler. Affirmed the denial of the company's writ petition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a benefit applicant's claim that he was entitled to Social Security disability based on a degenerative back condition. Held that the administrative law judge failed to support her decision to discount the treating neurosurgeon's opinion. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the denial of a man's application for unemployment insurance benefits. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

An unknown purchase order inquiry from Captain Fabri. You can smell the virus a mile away.

An extremely legitimate looking phishing scam aimed at NatWest credit card holders.

Ms Veronica Cordier, a 419 loan offer scammer that's by the book.

A SCREAMING 419 scammer. Maybe he is frustrated because nobody believes in the $700,000 prize money.

A Liberty Life Debit Order Authorization from Microsoft, via Standard Bank. This is enough to make anyone confused. Clearly these phishing scammers did not think this one through.

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

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit the limited use of motor vehicles off-road in a national forest in Arizona for certain purposes. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(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) - In an amended opinion, held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in a national forest in Arizona. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.