(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) in favor of Defendants in part and granted new trial. Defendants, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JCCI) manufactured talcum products that Plaintiff’s allege caused injury. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion for JNOV as to liability and punitive damages and for a new trial. The trial court granted the motions. The appeals court affirmed the JNOV in favor of Johnson & Johnson, but partially reversed as to Defendant, JCCI. Appeals court found no malice to support punitive damages, but found causation evidence in conflict and affirmed granting a new trial to JCCI.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An injury suit under general maritime law failed because causation evidence was scant and the injured party couldn't prove that grease on a ship deck caused him to slip and fall.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a torture victim who had obtained a court judgment against a terrorist organization was not entitled to attach funds from the organization's blocked electronic fund transfers. The torture victim wanted several banks to turn over $36 million to him in order to satisfy a court judgment he had obtained against the terrorist organization in a U.S. court. In a 2-1 decision affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that the punitively sanctioned organization's blocked assets were not subject to attachment.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(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 Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an accused murderer's challenge to Mexico's request to extradite him went beyond the narrow role for courts in the extradition process. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a tort action brought by a court-appointed receiver against defendant accountants who audited the financial statements of PEMGroup, whose former directors and managers defrauded $950 million from investors, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed where the receiver failed to raise a genuine issues as to causation by failing to show that the involved companies or its investors relied on the audits at issue.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by reporting millions of dollars in revenue that were never realized, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendant-corporate officers is vacated where: 1) Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act provided the SEC with a cause of action not only against Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers who did not file the required certifications, but also against CEOs and CFOs who certified false or misleading statements; and 2) the disgorgement remedy authorized under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied regardless of whether a restatement was caused by the personal misconduct of an issuer's CEO and CFO or by other issuer misconduct.

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

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

(NY Supreme Court) - 529952

(NY Supreme Court) - 110389

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and a property insurance company over an allegedly misdirected check, held that the homeowner had no cause of action under a Uniform Commercial Code provision dealing with negotiable instruments. Affirmed summary judgment against the homeowner.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. An employee bringing a Private Attorney General’s Act claim may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of the claim that seeks to recover underpaid wages.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a restitution order against a defendant who was convicted of preparing false tax returns for clients.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Internal Revenue Service failed to comply with its statutory obligation to provide reasonable notice to a taxpayer who was being audited in advance of subpoenaing records from a third party in connection with the audit. Affirmed an order quashing the subpoena.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under Massachusetts law for libel and intentional interference, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining claims, and affirming the award of attorney fees and costs to the defense in a case where an attorney was the subject of two negative reports because the law immunized the defense for many of the complaints.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the defense and its denial of plaintiff motions to reopen discovery and for relief from judgment in an action challenging a jail's policy prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail to inmates because the ban related to legitimate penological objectives and arguments supporting the plaintiff's appeals had been abandoned.

(United States DC Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the presidential communications privilege barred disclosure of five memoranda memorializing advice to President Obama about a military strike on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Supreme Court) - Affirming the dismissal of Alien Tort Statute complaints filed by the victims of terrorist attacks against a Jordanian bank with a New York branch they said was used to process transactions by a Texas-based charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas because under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petrolium Co. the ATS does not extend to suits against foreign corporations when all relevant conduct took place out of the United States, extending this holding to deem that foreign corporations may not be sued under the ATS generally.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a partnership. The attorney had been hired for this purpose by one of two partners who were embroiled in litigation with each other.

(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) - In a labor and employment action, arising after plaintiff was allegedly terminated by his employer, PG&E, for retaliating against a safety inspector who raised issues about his project, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where regardless of whether plaintiff was an at-will employee, PG&E established good cause for terminating him.

(United States First Circuit) - In a judgment enforcement action, the district court's order approving a sale recommended by the receiver as part of wrapping of a fifteen year case stemming from a $58 million judgment is affirmed where the sale appeal is not equitably moot and the district court's orders approving the sale details was not an abuse of discretion.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit between Taiwanese and Japanese companies whose contract had nothing at all to do with California, but still named it as the forum for the resolution of disputes, because it was not an abuse of discretion when the court determined that suitable alternative forums exist and California had no interest in the suit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that there was no basis for personal jurisdiction over a United Arab Emirates bank in a commercial dispute with a technology firm. The firm argued that the bank had waived its personal-jurisdiction defense through its litigation conduct. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the case because the bank lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the U.S.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a Korean manufacturer/distributor of household products was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California. The company was being sued in connection with a consumer's death allegedly from long-term use of a humidifier cleaning agent. Reversed an order quashing service of summons.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In action in which plaintiff asserted counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the district court's ruling that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention related to the process for distributing rivets is: 1) reversed in part, as to the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds; 2) affirmed in part, that the patent was not abandoned; and 3) remanded for determination of the remaining issues.

(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 Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree is reversed where defendant's prior conviction for attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C. is not the equivalent of a felony in New York and cannot serve as a proper basis for a second felony offender adjudication.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence following conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is affirmed where the sentencing court properly refused defendant’s request to defer payment of a mandatory surcharge imposed under Penal Law section 60.35 that was not subject to the court’s discretion.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a false arrest case contending that police invented a false confession to aid in the prosecution of plaintiff, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and New York common law, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) reversed where plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to constitute violations of New York's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims against individually-named plaintiffs; and 2) affirmed as to the City of New York and New York City Police Department in accordance with Monell v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for robbery in the second degree is reversed where the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's out-of-court statements to establish an element of the crime violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple counts of robbery and larceny is affirmed where the People's use of defendant's non-privileged telephone conversations, made while in custody at Rikers Island, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the dissemination of recordings of conversations at the District Attorney's request does not violate state law.