(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

“THAT was a crazy night and I don’t think we are ever going to see anything like that again,” said Sea Eagles prop Darcy Lussick.

A BOLD declaration by Warringah skipper Matt Butcher has his team in the box seat to secure first-innings points on Saturday.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In this action brought by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that prison officials showed a deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of his constitutional rights, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant prison officials, where the district court erred in denying the prison officials' motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, in an underlying federal action, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved for sanctions against appellant Dunn. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part. Respondent Committee of Professional Standards thereafter filed a petition alleging that Dunn had "engaged in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer" in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The basis of the complaint was essentially the text of the Magistrate's sanctions opinion. Judgment of the Appellate Division finding Dunn guilty of the charged misconduct and finding that collateral estoppel applied to the Magistrate's sanctions order is reversed and the matter is remitted, where: 1) while the issue of whether Dunn had made false statements in her written declaration, it was not the focus of the hearing on the underlying motion for sanctions; and 2) the cursory nature of the sanctions proceedings itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, plaintiff was arrested by defendant police officers for an alleged assault on his father-in-law. After plaintiff's arrest, his wife met with one of the police officers and gave him drugs which she purported to have found in plaintiff's car. Soon thereafter, the police officer and plaintiff's wife began a sexual relationship, and plaintiff was charged with assault, elder abuse, and two counts of drug possession. The drug charges were eventually dismissed for lack of probable cause, and a jury acquitted plaintiff the remaining charges, and after conducting an internal investigation, the City of Glendale terminate the police officer for conduct unbecoming of an officer. Summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed, where: 1) notwithstanding plaintiff's self-defense claim, there was probable cause to arrest and prosecute plaintiff for assault and elder abuse; 2) because the police officer's relationship with plaintiff's wife began after all of the evidence related to the altercation had been collected and documented, the officer's later misconduct did not undermine the existence of probable cause; and 3) plaintiff failed to demonstrate a Fourth Amendment seizure with respect to the drug possession charges.

(United States Supreme Court) - Disciplinary sanctions imposed by the state bar, pursuant to Cannon 7(C)(1), on a candidate for judicial office, who mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions for her campaign, are affirmed over a First Amendment challenge, where Cannon 7(C)(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an order to show cause why disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed on a lawyer, based primarily on his numerous defaults in several appeals in the Court of Appeals, the lawyer is publicly reprimanded from practice before the Court for eighteen months, both for his misconduct in those appeals and for his failure to properly respond to the order to show cause.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a Veterinary Medical Board decision to take disciplinary action against a veterinarian for improperly treating four animal patients. Affirmed the denial of the veterinarian's petition for a writ of administrative mandate.

He is only 13, but Max Conti has his eyes on a career in his beloved football.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a Houston law firm should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to protect its right to a contingent fee. The firm's client and the opposing party had allegedly conspired to cheat it out of its deserved attorney fee for work on a matter involving a foreign arbitral award. Remanded with directions to permit intervention and consider the law firm's claims on the merits.

(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 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 Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded. The District Court erred in granting a petition to have a child returned to his habitual home of Italy under the Hague Convention. Although it was affirmed that Italy was the child's habitual residence if repatriating him would expose the child to a grave risk of harm the district court isn't necessarily bound to return him.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action in which plaintiff alleges that defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court's judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is 1) affirmed in part, where: (a) a defendant can be liable for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty without owing the plaintiff a fiduciary duty; (b) the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is three or four years depending whether the breach is fraudulent or non-fraudulent; (c) the restitutionary remedy of disgorgement is available for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (d) the measure of restitution for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is the net profit attributable to the wrong; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where defendants are entitled to a new trial on the amount of defendants' unjust enrichment. (Opinion on Rehearing)

(United States First Circuit) - In another appeal in a protracted employment dispute between two former colleagues in which plaintiff sought payment of his promised wages and loan money, the District Court's decision to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to hold defendant and related entities liable for the judgment originally entered against defendant's company only is affirmed where the District Court did not plainly err in joining related entities as alter egos of defendant's company and holding them liable for the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a shareholder derivative action for failure to show demand futility in a suit where shareholders of a company who brought suit for breach of fiduciary duties for failing to disclose manufacturing and design defects in the company's solar panels without making a demand to the board.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(NY Supreme Court) - 528503

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and reversed a District Court order in the case of the dismissal of a tenured professor. The professor's guilty plea to felony charges relating to the dismissal were serious cause sufficient to support his firing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was cited for wage and hour violations. Plaintiff contended that it could require its employees to work “on-duty” meal periods less than 30 minutes. The appeals court found that an employer must provide meal periods of at least 30 minutes regardless of whether they are on-duty or off-duty.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Held that Division I football players were not employees of the NCAA because the economic realities for student-athletes do not match an employer/employee relationship. The district court’s dismissal of an athlete’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that local water districts were not entitled to be reimbursed by the state for the cost of complying with unfunded state mandates to improve water service. The water districts argued that reimbursement was necessary because the passage of Proposition 218 had limited their authority to levy fees. Disagreeing, the California Third Appellate District concluded that their authority to levy fees had not changed. The panel affirmed the trial court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that West Virginia unlawfully discriminated against a U.S. Marshalls Service retiree when it gave a generous pension tax benefit only to state or local retirees who served in law enforcement. The plaintiff relied on a federal statute that, broadly speaking, bars states from taxing the compensation of federal employees differently from state employees. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him that West Virginia's tax rule unlawfully disfavored federal retirees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit an attorney it had previously denied admission pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy, the District Court's denial is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion, as there are a litany of reasons for denying the attorney's pro hac vice status.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Plaintiffs have standing for a Freedom of Information Act claim because the removal of compliance and enforcement records from the USDA website harmed them in real-world ways, differently from the injuries sustained by other Americans.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by the former CEO of American Apparel whose employment was terminated following an investigation into allegations that he engaged in various types of misconduct, alleging several causes of action rooted in plaintiff's claim that the press release announcing his termination contained false and defamatory information about him, the trial court's grant of defendant's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where plainitiff did not satisfy his burden of showing there was a minimal chance his claims would succeed at trial.

(Supreme Court of California) - Holding that under California law, a dissolved law firm has no property interest in legal matters handled on an hourly basis and therefore no interest in profits generated by a former partners' work on hourly fee matters pending at the time of dissolution.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing and remanding the suit alleging infringement of five US patents for lack of personal jurisdiction by a UK company with a Texas subsidiary suing a Brazilian company with a Minnesota subsidiary because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supported the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.

(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.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action concerning who pays for storm drains, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles's permit conditions are mandated by federal law and that storm drain systems operators are not entitled to state reimbursement under Article XIII B, section 6, subd. (a) of the California Constitution is reversed where the permit conditions are not imposed by any federal law or regulatory system.