(United States Second Circuit) - In this civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant volunteer ambulance corps and several of its directors violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by levying disciplinary charges against her without a hearing, summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiff's federal constitutional claims is affirmed, where: 1) emergency medical care and general ambulance services are not "traditionally exclusive public functions"; 2) extensive State regulation and oversight does not therefore entwine defendant with the State; and 3) defendant's conduct does not amount to state action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act in a securities lawsuit filed by the shareholder of an Argentine petroleum company against the Argentine Republic which held a majority of shares in the company. In affirming the denial and rejecting the claim of sovereign immunity, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff was seeking relief for injuries caused by commercial, rather than sovereign, activity.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that 14 Holocaust survivors could proceed with their lawsuit against the Republic of Hungary seeking compensation for the seizure and expropriation of their property during the Holocaust. Reversed the district court, which had dismissed their complaint based on principles of international comity and on grounds of forum non conveniens.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the district court should not have sua sponte raised a statute of limitations defense to defeat a terrorism lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had failed to make an appearance in the case. The suit alleged that Iran was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that killed or injured the plaintiffs' family members. Vacated a dismissal.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that claimants whose family members were harmed in a terrorist attack may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the claimants were not present at the scene of the attack. The case involved District of Columbia tort law and terrorist bombings in East Africa.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the absence of the invalidated extension statute, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation for property taken from Plaintiffs’ ancestors during the Armenian Genocide brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act were barred by the statute of limitations for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this derivative action brought by plaintiff-shareholders against defendant-directors of company Allergan, alleging that defendants are liable for violations of various state and federal law as well as for breaches of their fiduciary duties to Allergan, dismissal on the pleadings is reversed, where: 1) though plaintiffs did not first make a demand on defendants requesting that Allergan bring the derivative claims in its own name, their particularized allegations establish a reasonable doubt as to whether defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability and as to whether defendants are protected by the business judgment rule; and 2) accordingly, the demand requirement is excused.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which a minority shareholder sued a majority shareholder, reversed and remanded with directions to reinstitute a special proceeding under Corporations Code section 2000.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a former company president did not have to arbitrate his claims that the CEO and others wrongfully diluted his interest in the high-tech company's stock. His employment contract's arbitration clause did not cover this situation. Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03446 Index Nos. 85050/20, 85052/20

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Plaintiff filed suit for employment discrimination, retaliation and defamation. Defendant filed an anti—SLAPP motion, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The Supreme court held that the anti-SLAPP statute is applicable to the claims of discrimination and retaliation, but not to the defamation cause of action because it was not made in connection with any issue of public significance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

(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.

(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.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a hedge fund manager who claimed Bloomberg News falsely reported that he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff brought suit against Bloomberg, as well as the reporter and editor of the story, alleging that they had defamed him and committed other common-law torts. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure and that he had failed to allege such facts.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act in a securities lawsuit filed by the shareholder of an Argentine petroleum company against the Argentine Republic which held a majority of shares in the company. In affirming the denial and rejecting the claim of sovereign immunity, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff was seeking relief for injuries caused by commercial, rather than sovereign, activity.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which a minority shareholder sued a majority shareholder, reversed and remanded with directions to reinstitute a special proceeding under Corporations Code section 2000.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an action by a private energy company against the utility companies because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act does not provide a private right of action against utility companies and affirming the denial of a motion for additional relief against various Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities officials because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed in part a ruling addressing how much money Los Angeles County may tax Time Warner Cable. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Time Warner, argued that the county government was taxing it more than the law allowed for its use of public rights-of-way. On appeal, the Second Appellate District held that the county was not required to value the possessory interests based only on five percent of cable television revenue. In all other respects the panel affirmed the trial court's judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed small-scale solar energy producers' claims that the California Public Utilities Commission's programs do not comply with federal requirements. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - A preliminary injunction issued against defendant, restricting her use of a mark's trade dress during the pendency of an underlying infringement action, is reversed where the district court failed to make any findings on the record as to why plaintiff's mark was distinctive.

(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) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(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) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a retired teacher, sought relief to prevent Defendant from reducing retirement benefits and to restore monies wrongfully withheld. The trial court held that Defendant was time-barred to reduce benefits and collect over payment, thus concluding that continuous accrual theory did not apply. Appeals court held the continuous accrual theory did apply, but Defendant was time barred as to over payments made more than three years before the action was filed and may adjust future monthly payments to recoup those prior over payments.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissed claims by a group of chartered schools complaining about school funding practices but the case was vacated and remanded for dismissal because they lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in the first instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff sued for the wrongful denial of unemployment benefits. On appeal, Plaintiff was granted unemployment benefits. On this, Plaintiff's third appeal over this controversy, the appeals court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly limited the scope of the fees.

(MD Court of Appeals) - No. 19, Sept. Term, 2019