(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger, and in light of Delaware Supreme Court's answer to a certified question that plaintiff was not required to bring its breach of contract claim as a derivative action, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor defendant is vacated where plaintiff is not barred from pursuing its claim directly.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger agreement in which one party agreed to indemnify the other against a purely hypothetical tax loss, involving the issue of whether the prepayments and credits, and resulting tax refunds, affect the tax indemnification obligation of the sellers, the District Court's judgment in favor of sellers is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where; 1) the indemnification provision is ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of the sellers; and 2) the parties' arguments about the purpose and negotiating history of the provision cannot be resolved without the aid of a fact-finder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of two drug store chains in a dispute with a shopping mall over common area maintenance fees. The case raised questions about real property rights and reverse triangular mergers.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute that arose out of the sale of a manufacturing plant, held that the district judge was correct to withhold any remedy that would transfer the value of certain promissory notes from the secured lenders to the seller. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a rental property owner, filed suit against Defendant, a rent control board, to prevent certain properties from being subject to rent control. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff, but the appeals court held that the rent board did not have the authority to exempt rental units from rent control under the Santa Monica City Charter.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Granted. The motion to transfer a lawsuit involving the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to the Tenth Circuit was granted because appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, typically the DC Circuit.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consumer protection class action, alleging that various defendants' prescription eye drop medications come with a bottle dropper tip that dispenses too much medication in one drop, thereby wasting medication and causing plaintiffs undue economic hardship, the district court's dismissal is reversed where plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury in fact to confer Article III standing under to bring their various state law claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the District Court's determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product.

(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 First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a consumer complaint alleging that manufacturers of prescription eye drops deliberately designed their bottles to emit unnecessarily large drops in a ploy to force patients to waste the expensive medication and thus buy more of it. Moving to dismiss on preemption grounds, the manufacturers contended that the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any modification of the medication's bottle. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that FDA regulations preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims seeking to force a change in the bottle design.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a company in the business of selling internet domain names and operates the popular .com and .net top-level domains, alleging its competitor made a series of statements touting the popularity of the .xyz domain and warning of a scarcity of desirable .com domain names which violated the Lanham Act's false advertising provisions, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) as to defendant's self-promoting statements, most of which concern its registration numbers, plaintiff failed to produce the required evidence that it suffered an actual injury as a direct result of defendant’s conduct; and 2) plaintiff did not establish that defendant's statements about the availability of suitable .com domain names were false or misleading statements of fact, as required for Lanham Act liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright dispute arising out of photographs posted online on defendant's social media website, the district court's summary judgment that defendant was entitled protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is reversed where: 1) the safe harbor set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c) would apply if the photographs were posted at the direction of users; 2) defendant posted the photographs after a team of volunteer moderators, led by an employee of the defendant, reviewed and approved them; 3) the common law of agency applied to the defendant's safe harbor defense; and 4) there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators were the defendant's agents.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit alleging that Domino's Pizza's website and mobile application were not fully accessible to blind or visually impaired persons. The plaintiff, a blind man, alleged that he had no way to order pizzas or other food online. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a political cartoonist and blogger could not proceed with his lawsuit alleging that a newspaper wrongfully terminated his employment and also defamed him by telling its readers that it had serious questions about the accuracy of one of his blog posts. Affirmed the granting of the newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the amount in controversy in an employee class action was too low for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). An employer that had been sued for allegedly violating wage-hour laws, and that removed the case to federal court under CAFA, argued that the district court erred in remanding the case to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the employer that, in assessing the amount in controversy, the district court should have included future attorney fees recoverable by statute or contract. The panel therefore reversed and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a state law fraud lawsuit against an investment adviser was precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The statute's definition of a "covered class action" includes any class action brought by a named plaintiff on a representative basis, regardless of the proposed class size. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. A class action suit against energy providers was dismissed and a post-judgment request for leave to amend was refused. Plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint and their proposed amended complaint stated plausible claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that baseball stadium security guards did not need to submit their wage claims to arbitration. The issue involved whether the claims turned on the meaning of their collective-bargaining agreement. Answering no, the California Supreme Court held that the security guards could proceed in state court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 580d, the California Supreme Court held that a creditor holding two deeds of trust on the same property may recover a deficiency judgment on the junior lien extinguished by a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the senior lien.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. Plaintiffs brought a tort action against Defendants for a fatal tour bus accident that occurred in Arizona. The parties originally included plaintiffs from China and defendants from Indiana and California. The trial court determined that Indiana law governed the suit. Before trial a settlement was reached with the Indiana defendant. A Motion in Limine was brought to reconsider the choice of law because of the settlement. The Supreme Court held that a settlement did not require the trial to reconsider the choice of law.

“Joyful Sounds” Was First Broadcast In 1982. Founder Rob Green Also Hosts The “Gospel Country” Radio Show And Operates Christian Music Weekly Magazine.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a restaurant offering gourmet hot dogs was entitled to prevail in its tort lawsuit against a shopping center for intentionally concealing a crucial fact, which was that another hot dog restaurant would be one of the other lessees. Affirmed in part and reversed in part after a trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A franchise's preliminary injunction against a franchisee operating a competing company was upheld in a lawsuit over the franchisee's alleged violation of franchise agreements. The district court should have included more detail regarding the likelihood of success on the merits by the movant, but there was enough to establish that the order wasn't an abuse of discretion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant had a right to compel arbitration, but elected to proceed with a judicial forum. However, during the litigation process, Defendant changed its mind and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court held that Defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A company sued a former employee who went to work for a direct competitor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction because there was an employment agreement with a non-compete provision.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Federal Trade Commission Act could support an order compelling an online payday lender to pay more than $1 billion in monetary relief for unfair business practices. Two of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel filed a concurring opinion to suggest that the court should rehear the case en banc to reconsider relevant circuit precedent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court improperly reduced the amount of attorney fees to which vehicle purchasers were entitled after prevailing in a lemon law suit. Reversed and remanded with instructions to award the plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by reporting to a credit bureau that a debtor had nine unpaid bills of $60, rather than simply indicating an aggregate debt of $540. Reversed the district court, in this case involving co-pays for physical therapy sessions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure is constitutionally permissible. A law firm raised the argument in contending that it was not required to comply with the bureau's investigative demand to respond to interrogatories about its debt relief services and marketing. The Ninth Circuit rejected the law firm's position.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tenant's lawsuit against a company that screens prospective tenants. He brought the suit after being denied housing due to criminal history disclosures appearing in his tenant screening report. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and several California statutes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, affirmed a preliminary injunction freezing the assets of companies that allegedly had made deceptive representations regarding loan modification services.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a car purchaser's successful lemon law suit, held that the trial court used an improper method to determine reasonable attorney fees. Remanded for a recalculation of the fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a debt collection action, the court found that Defendant was liable for the debt, but found that the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff attorney fees related to the defense of counterclaims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Restitution award vacated. The FTC sued Defendant for several violations of consumer protection statutes. The trial court found for the FTC, entered a permanent injunction against Defendant and ordered $5 million in restitution to the FTC. The appeals court affirmed the judgment as to the violations of consumer statutes and the injunction but held that restitution was not authorized by section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Ordior Has Signed Patrick Mathias Aka Password For A World Wide Exclusive Publishing And Administration Agreement!

Ordior Has Signed BlackFaceNaija For A World Wide Exclusive Publishing And Administration Agreement!

Ordior Has Signed African China For A World Wide Exclusive Publishing And Administration Agreement!

Producer Bekim! Releasing Masterpiece Single With Amilcar Singing

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.