(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(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.

(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.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of the defendant police officer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the remainder of the appeal in a case alleging false arrest and imprisonment because there was evidence the officers had probable cause for the arrest and they are entitled to qualified immunity under New York law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action alleging the City unlawfully charged plaintiffs and others an unauthorized trash disposal fee, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, on grounds that the City had already reimbursed the plaintiffs for all improper charges, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' individual claims are moot because a court could grant them no further relief beyond what they have already received; and 2) unlike other cases in which the 'pick off' exception has been applied, here, the injunctive relief provisions in the Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles stipulated settlement and judgment required the City to reimburse plaintiffs and other putative class members, and the City complied with this obligation before plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint naming them as parties; and thus 2) under these particular circumstances, the 'pick off' exception does not apply.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the alleged conflict of interest in the acquisition of property by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District's acquisition of property where one of the District's directors had partial ownership of the agency facilitating the sale of the property and whose wife was its listing agent because the former owner had standing under the Government Code to bring the action and that the action was not subject to validation statutes because it was a conflict of interest rather than a contracts claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a verified petition for writ of mandate complaining about a city's transfer of additional revenue from electric utility reserve fund accounts into the general fund without approval from the electorate because the action was subject to the 120 day statute of limitations of the Public Utilities Code and was not a tax increase.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the City of Philadelphia unconstitutionally uses liens as a means to collect unpaid gas bills. In this lawsuit brought by a group of landlords, the City appealed from a ruling that it had violated the landlords' rights under the Due Process Clause by using a system of liens to collect unpaid gas bills. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the City's procedures for collecting gas debts, and thus reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the landlords.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a municipality's water rate plan was subject to voter referendum, reversing the trial court. Further held that California voters' 1996 adoption of Proposition 218, concerning initiatives, did not abridge voters' right to challenge local resolutions and ordinances by referendum.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Tennessee Valley Authority is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities, just as if it were a private corporation supplying electricity. The TVA insisted that, as a government-owned corporation, it has sovereign immunity from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(MN Court of Appeals) - A19-1561

(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 Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, in which defendant refused to pay plaintiff more than a single deductable payment following the defense of a class action and resulting settlement involving the county, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where county’s improper strip searches of arrestees over a four-year period constituted multiple occurrences under the insurance policy and defendant is responsible for paying deductibles to plaintiff with respect to each class member.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a personal injury action, arising after plaintiff, a minor child, was exposed to lead at her grandmother's apartment where she was cared for during the day, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff child' did not 'reside' at her grandmother's apartment for the purposes of section 27-2013[h][1] of the Administrative Code of the City of NY, which requires landlords to remove lead-based paint in any dwelling in which a child six year of age and under resides.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a civil action, arising from an auto accident allegedly caused by defendant school district's sign distracting and obstructing passing drivers on a roadway, the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff should not be permitted to serve late notice of a claim is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant would be substantially prejudiced without any record evidence to support that determination.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action challenging defendant Towson University's refusal to allow plaintiff to return to playing football after he suffered a near-death heat-stroke induced coma requiring a liver transplant and additional surgeries, the district court's judgment for plaintiff under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to participate in defendant's football program under defendant's reasonably applied Return-to-Play Policy.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal from the trial court's denial of two consolidated petitions to set aside the certification of the environmental impact report and related permits for the construction of an arena to house the Golden State Warriors basketball team, as well as other events, and the construction of adjacent facilities, in the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area of San Francisco, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where there is no merit to plaintiffs' objections to the sufficiency of the city's environmental analysis and its approval of the proposed project.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the dismissal of a suit filed by a student athlete volleyball player against a community college after she was injured during a tournament game when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock. The community college argued that it was protected by an immunity covering field trips and excursions, as set forth in section 55220 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Rejecting this argument, the Fourth Appellate District held that this provision did not apply to an injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate athletic event. The panel therefore reversed an order granting a demurrer and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed on summary judgment that a YMCA was not liable for negligence in the death of a man who died of sudden cardiac arrest after playing soccer on a YMCA-owned field that was rented to a nonmember league. Held that the YMCA had no common-law duty of care to provide hands-on usage of an automatic external defibrillator on the facts here.

(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.