(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an arbitrator did not exceed his authority by denying attorney fees to a party that prevailed in an arbitration, under the particular circumstances of this case. Affirmed in relevant part, in a dispute involving an investment made by a retirement plan.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employee who filed an administrative wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner could not be forced into arbitration, because his employment contract's arbitration clause was permeated with unconscionability. Affirmed the denial of a petition to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a truck driver did not have to arbitrate his claim for unpaid wages. He fell within the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Affirmed the ruling below.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs attempted to enforce arbitration in an action for elder abuse and wrongful death at a skilled nursing facility. The trial court determined that the successor in interest was bound by the agreement to arbitrate, but the children of the decedent were not so bound. The trial court denied the petition to arbitrate to prevent inconsistent findings if both arbitration and litigation proceeded concurrently. The appeals court agreed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration for claims of negligent, elder abuse and wrongful death. The trial court found that the claims were not arbitratable because there was no arbitration agreement between Defendant and the decedent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The district court dismissed an action brought by exotic dancers for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Reversing, the panel held the statutory requirement that plaintiffs must be employees as defined in the FLSA is a merits-based determination, not a jurisdictional limitation.

(US 4th Circuit) - No. 19-1369

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed that a broker-dealer was required to arbitrate a customer's claim. The broker-dealer had placed a contractual clause in its agreement with an institutional customer stating that the customer must bring any claims arising out of their agreement in a particular federal court. Splitting from several other circuits on the enforceability of such forum-selection clauses, the Third Circuit held that the clause was unenforceable because it would circumvent Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 12200. The panel therefore affirmed an order compelling the broker-dealer to submit to FINRA arbitration.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed that a company whose sole business activity was purchasing and then attempting to collect debts was subject to the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). When homeowners brought suit against the assignee of their home equity loan alleging unlawful debt-collection attempts, the assignee argued that it was not covered by the FDCPA because it was a creditor, not a debt collector. Disagreeing with this characterization, the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the homeowners.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a claim that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by leaving telephone voice messages that did not use its true name. The plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint alleging that the debt collector left pre-recorded messages on their phone that did not state the caller's correct name. Reversing the district court, the Third Circuit held that they stated a plausible claim for relief under the statute's true-name provision, though the panel affirmed the dismissal of their other causes of action.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a consumer who purchased baby powder without being informed that it increased the risk of ovarian cancer (as she alleged it did) had no standing to pursue claims for economic injury. The plaintiff argued that she and other consumers would not have purchased the baby powder in the first place had they been properly informed about its alleged risks. Emphasizing that she was asserting only economic harm, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of her class-action complaint, explaining that the product had functioned for her as expected.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a real estate title insurer had a duty to defend the insured party (here the successor to a lender) against certain claims of the borrower/mortgagor. The title insurer disputed that it had a duty to defend. Applying Pennsylvania law, the Third Circuit held that a duty to defend existed under the facts, but only as to certain of the borrower's claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code did not permit the co-founders of several real-estate management companies to discharge a debt arising from a state-court judgment for fraud and misrepresentation. The central issue in this case was whether the individuals continued to engage in business after consummation of the Chapter 11 plan. Concluding that they did not, the Ninth Circuit held that they could not discharge the debt.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a fired chief executive officer could sue the company's secured creditor in state court. Affirmed that his tortious interference claim belonged in state court rather than in the company's bankruptcy proceeding.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contract to provide financial services was voidable because the company had failed to register as an investment adviser, as it was required to do under the Investment Advisers Act. Affirmed a ruling on this question in the company's bankruptcy proceeding.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Rejected a mootness argument in a dispute between an insolvent borrower and the holder of a mortgage note. Overruled In re River West Plaza-Chicago LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011), holding that 11 U.S.C. section 363(m) does not make any dispute moot or prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding what shall be done with the proceeds of a sale or lease.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a real estate business's Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Held that the plan was lawfully proposed even though a lessee illegally grew marijuana. Rejected a challenge brought by the United States Trustee.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this defamation action, plaintiff appealed from a judgment against her. Defendant, a television news agency, ran a news story about a county in Virginia hiring a plaintiff, a convicted felon and implying that she lied on her job application. Although plaintiff had a prior conviction she disclosed that on her application and was hired anyway. Plaintiff sued the news organization. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was a public figure and as such she would need to prove actual malice. The trial court granted defendants motion for directed verdict, concluding that plaintiff had failed to show actual malice. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the judgment.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissals of three consumer lawsuits alleging that Hyundai Motor America misrepresented the estimated fuel economy of certain models of the Hyundai Elantra. In affirming the dismissals, the Fourth Circuit held that the complaints failed to satisfy federal pleading standards, except as to a single claim in one of the complaints, which the appeals court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that the United States should be substituted as a party defendant in a lawsuit in which two defendants were tobacco industry businesspeople who had agreed to perform undercover work for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The question before the Fourth Circuit was whether the United States should be substituted as a party defendant. The panel held that the answer was yes, and thus reversed the district court's ruling on the matter.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that plaintiffs bringing three wrongful death nursing home malpractice claims were entitled to punitive damages. The nursing homes argued that they were not liable for punitive damages because there was no aggravating factor justifying such an award, and the trial court granted their JMOL motion. Reversing, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to award punitive damages under North Carolina law.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that the National Labor Relations Board was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief directing two hospitals to bargain in good faith with a labor union representing nurses and take other actions. The NLRB argued that the district court ought to have granted its request for a preliminary injunction under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Fourth Circuit explained that the Board had not demonstrated that the effectiveness of its remedial power would be in jeopardy unless a preliminary injunction were imposed.

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!

Edmund Cotter Has Been Working With The DJ Central, Ordior, And Blue Pie Teams For Over A Year Now, And It’s Time To Give Him An Official Warm Welcome!

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Various Connecticut Liqour Control Act and related regulations were hybrid restraints on trade but the plaintiff failed to plead facts that they constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. In appealing an award of summary judgement for the defendants, plaintiff argues she proffered sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact in her sex discrimination case. Finding plaintiff’s arguments fail on the merits, the panel affirms.

(United States Second Circuit) - Remanded. The panel agreed with Bifolck that the district court misapplied the nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel standard, but the error does not necessarily require the judgement to be vacated.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The application of the Commodity Exchange Act to alleged misconduct in trading of crude oil extracted from Europe’s North Sea is impermissibly extraterritorial.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(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 Federal Circuit) - Vacating a decision by the US Court of International Trade affirming a US Department of Commerce determination that certain imported oil country tubular goods (OCTG) fabricated as unfinished OCTG in China and finished in other countries were not subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders covering OCTG imported from China because the Trade Court improperly proscribed the use of the substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor distributor's claim under the RICO statute against other liquor distributors. The New York metropolitan area's exclusive distributor for many leading brands of liquor brought this suit alleging that two of Maryland's largest liquor distributors were smuggling liquor into New York, cutting into its sales. The district court dismissed the case because the smuggling operation, as alleged, did not directly cause the plaintiff to lose sales, and therefore the plaintiff did not adequately allege proximate cause under RICO. Agreeing, the Second Circuit affirmed.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims brought against two manufacturers of a material called containerboard that is used to make boxes. Held that there was not enough evidence of a conspiracy to proceed to trial on the purchasers' claims under the Sherman Act that the companies conspired to increase prices and reduce output.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute between two companies in the agriculture-related biotechnology field, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after a jury trial. The case involved antitrust claims, patent infringement claims and an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that Connecticut law governing liquor pricing is not preempted by federal antitrust law. Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor retailer's complaint, which challenged certain provisions of Connecticut's Liquor Control Act and related regulations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a company offering bar exam review courses did not plausibly plead that a competitor conspired with certain law schools to enable it to obtain a monopoly. Affirmed the dismissal of this antitrust lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.