(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trip and fall action, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there was dispute as to whether defendant or an adjacent business’s portion of a sidewalk was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees is vacated and the case remanded where the police’s seizure of defendant’s clothing from a clear hospital bag without a warrant or defendant’s consent violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an environmental action, challenging a Town Board's positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and requiring a draft environmental impact statement, the trial court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed where the positive declaration is not justiciable and the case not ripe for judicial review.

(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.

(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) - In a case involving an airport lease and operating agreement, brought by a company alleging that the city had a flawed bidding process, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's leave to amend its petition and complaint is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(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) - Upheld an administrative decision by the Santa Monica Community College District to allow a contractor to replace one subcontractor with another subcontractor on a construction project. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff subcontractor's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

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

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(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.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. District court granted summary judgment to Defendant police department against Plaintiff’s claim of civil rights violations for seizure of firearms from residence and failure to return them.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense's sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none of the patents were invalid for obviousness.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Returning once again after climbing and descending the appellate ladder several times, the court held that the defendant had not forfeited its preemption defense and that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act preempts state law remedies for an applicant's failure to comply with aspects of the Act, and affirming the dismissal of the state law claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's conclusion that Monsanto and others failed to state a claim in a suit where they averred that Proposition 65's reliance on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's determinations about which chemicals cause cancer improperly granted a foreign entity authority over domestic affairs.

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) discussed what kind of economic stimulus should be passed to respond to the coronavirus and stated that it would be “an economic disaster” if President Trump didn’t fund the

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a federally recognized Indian tribe was prohibited from operating an internet bingo casino. The State of California and the United States brought this lawsuit contending that the tribe's online bingo game violated the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Agreeing with the governmental plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against the tribe, holding that while the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act protects gaming activity conducted on Indian lands, it did not permit the tribe's internet bingo game that reached patrons located off Indian lands.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld a beach town's ordinance imposing restrictions on companies, such as Airbnb Inc., that host online platforms for short-term vacation rentals. The internet companies claimed that the ordinance impermissibly infringed their First Amendment rights or was preempted by federal law. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their lawsuit seeking to enjoin the ordinance.

CW Is Also The Founder And DJ Of ‘Mo’ Money’ Events At Marbella’s Elite Olivia Valere Night Club Since 2015

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court erred in denying class certification to truck drivers bringing wage and hour claims against their employer. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, explaining that errors were made in analyzing whether predominantly common issues existed.

(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) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a man's capital murder conviction for killing a woman and her daughter.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(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.

Today’s CapChat looks at three current issues. 

First, with horse death investigations underway at Santa Anita Park, three more deaths have occurred in recent days. Since December 2018, there have been a total of 42 deaths at the park. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in June of 2019 allowing the state to suspend horse racing at tracks with dangerous conditions. That has, as yet, not happened at Santa Anita.

Next, in a new pilot program, Uber is giving some of its driving contractors more control by letting them set their own rates. Drivers at the Sacramento, Palm Springs and Santa Barbara airports can increase rates in ten percent increments, with a cap. Depending on results, Uber could expand this to other airports. This is an effort to clarify that Uber drivers are independent, not employees, since the implementation of AB 5 on Jan. 1, 2020.

Third, with the impeachment trial underway in the U.S. Senate, the date of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union somewhat uncertain, Newsom has yet to set a date for his own annual State of the State address. 

Guests

• CapRadio State Government Reporter Scott Rodd

In November 2017, we here at Bandicoot Marketing acquired Themes By Bavotasan from Chris. It was great to meet Chris during the acquisition and hear about all of the hard…

The post Themes By Bavotasan Is Becoming Bandicoot Pro appeared first on bavotasan.com.

The Single Will Be Available Digitally, CD Single And Limited Edition 7-inch Vinyl

BELEAF, Which Releases In Stores And Online Worldwide August 16, 2019, Is A 14-track Powerhouse That Promises To Be Their Strongest, Clearest, And Most Authentic Work Yet.

NIE Presents: The Hsu-nami, Fuck Your Birthday, NegativeHate, Stereobird @ Santos Party House

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that temporary workers assigned to pack produce for a produce company must arbitrate their claims alleging labor law violations, because their staffing firm contract mandated arbitration. It was inconsequential that they chose not to name the staffing firm in their complaint. Reversed and remanded with directions to compel arbitration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The complaint did not plausibly allege Plaintiff was placed on the Child Abuse Central Index as retaliation. However, it did plausibly allege that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker’s actions.

Capitol Hill bar Sancho's Broken Arrow has received a notice from the city requiring it to be vacated immediately and remain empty until the city's stay-at-home order is lifted.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the sentence of a man who was placed on supervision after serving a fifteen year prison sentence for a federal firearm conviction pursuant to the Armed Criminal Career Act and promptly violated the terms by threatening to kill his teenage daughter and her mother because his challenge to the underlying conviction was not within the jurisdiction of the court to consider and the new term of supervised release was not plainly unreasonable.

(US 8th Circuit) - No. 18-3574

Look at that face!

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.