(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the third chapter of Silicon Valley litigation spanning more than 14 years involving a microchip company and its successor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the judgment entered on plaintiff's cross-complaint against defendant is reversed where the court erred in submitting defendant's statute of limitations defense to the jury, as the cross-complaint was timely filed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a city's practice of annually transferring funds from a city-operated electric utility to the city's general fund did not run afoul of the California Constitution, which prohibits local governments from imposing any tax without voter approval. A citizen association brought this suit arguing that the city was, in effect, using utility rates to impose a tax without voter approval. Rejecting this contention, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal.

(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 Federal Circuit) - In a case arising from the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping-duty investigation of multilayered wood flooring imports from the People's Republic of China, brought by Chinese entities that Commerce found had demonstrated their independence from the Chinese government and so deserved a separate antidumping-duty rate, not the so-called China-wide rate that applies to entities that had not shown their independence from the Chinese government, the Court of International Trade's decision affirming Commerce's findings is vacated where Commerce did not make the findings needed to justify departing from the congressionally approved 'expected method' applicable when all of the individually investigated firms have a zero or de minimis rate, which is the case here.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's affirmation of the US Department of Commerce's findings following a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India.

(United States Third Circuit) - Concluding that a transfer by a non-debtor cannot be a 'fraudulent transfer' under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a complicated case involving Venezuela's nationalization of a gold mine owned by a Canadian company, the debt judgment subsequently issued by the World Bank, and the ensuing financial shuffle among companies related to the original transaction.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision sustaining the International Trade Commission's finding that Chinese imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules were being dumped on the US market, damaging domestic industry, because these determinations were supported by substantial evidence on the record.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an in rem suit filed against a ship for cargo damage sustained in transit because liability for the damage was covered by the carrier's bill of lading, which included a forum selection clause requiring suit be brought in South Korea because although South Korean courts would not allow an in rem suit, the plaintiff could have brought an in personam suit and chose not to do so for strategic reasons and the foreign forum selection clause did not violate the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an arbitration proceeding default award for hundreds of millions of dollars against a Chinese company that did not appear after service by mail in a Los Angeles action brought by an American investment partnership complaining of a breach of contract because the Hague Service Convention does not permit Chinese citizens to be served by mail, nor does it permit parties to set their own terms of service by contract.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement case, summary judgment was granted to defendant as no reasonable jury could conclude that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's mark in any way, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for attorneys' fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A tenured teacher who waged an extended campaign against students who did not give him an award and sued the school when the Board of Trustees took action against him lost his appeal of the grant of summary judgment to the school. The First Amendment didn't protect his firing for intentionally causing harm to students and failing to follow the dean's instructions.

(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 First Circuit) - In a civil forfeiture case arising in the aftermath of a 1993 criminal prosecution in which claimant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging money laundering violations, seeking compensation for the government's alleged seizure of claimant's ownership interest in a professional basketball team franchise, the district court's judgment in favor of the government is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the court records suggests that the government seized the franchise when it obtained the restraining order to preserve the franchise as a potentially forfeitable asset; and 2) though that order effectively prevented the claimant from participating in the affairs of the franchise, it did not divest him of his proprietary interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Contracting Officer's rejection of plaintiff's unsolicited proposal to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (IHEODTD) pursuant to 48 C.F.R. (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)) Subpart 15.6 (2015), the Claims Court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where there is lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) because he lacked standing under 28 U.S.C. section 1491(b)(1) (2012).

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Pomona violated the terms of a 1993 ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits. A citizen group challenged the city council's decision to extend a pre-existing agreement with an outdoor advertising company when the arrangement expired in 2014. Affirmed the granting of a writ of mandate.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of military aircraft that was sued in state court in an asbestos-related personal injury action was entitled to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a), based on the assertion of a government contractor defense. Reversed the district court.

(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) - Upheld the City of San Diego's decision to approve an environmental impact report addendum for an urban park project. Affirmed the denial of a citizen group's petition for writ of mandamus.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld a decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to revoke two physicians' Medicare privileges for billing irregularities. They allegedly submitted Medicare claims for services provided on dates that they were out of the country.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated two Mississippi hospitals' Medicare reimbursements, specifically, so-called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments. Reversed the decision below and remanded to the agency.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

Your Verizon Wireless bill from the IRS. Wow, they must be serious about collecting the outstanding amount, because they called fridaysug85 to do the collection!

An inheritance fund scammer that requires you to eat the documents to get the funds.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

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.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

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

So you are no longer winning lotteries, you are getting donations from generous lottery winners.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case involving the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement Agreement, held that the district court erred in analyzing certain business claims for economic loss. The issue had to do with the process of matching revenues and expenses. Reversed and remanded.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of rapper Jay-Z and other defendants in the case of copyright infringement claims brought by the heir to an Egyptian composer's copyright on the arrangement of a song used as a sample in the hit single 'Big Pimpin' because the heri lacked standing to bring copyright claims. The rights had been transferred by an earlier agreement and Egyptian law recognizes a transferable right of adaptation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.