(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

(United States First Circuit) - The district court's preliminary injunction that restrained defendant, a former employee of plaintiff, from doing business with certain customers to whom he had sold products and services while in plaintiff's employ, is affirmed, where: 1) the identity of the party making initial contact is just one factor among many that the trial court should consider in drawing the line between solicitation and acceptance; 2) the evidence of record is adequate to underpin the lower court's determinations that defendant violated the non-solicitation covenant and that plaintiff is therefore likely to succeed on the merits; and 3) the district court narrowly tailored the preliminary injunction with respect to non-disclosure, enjoining only the use of information contained in defendant's notes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff finding that defendant had misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets regarding its digital stamping technology (DST), which was disclosed to defendant during negotiations pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreement, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff did not fail to adequately identify its trade secrets; 2) the trial court did not err in its identification of the misappropriated trade secrets; 3) ideas are protectable as trade secrets; 4) design concepts underlying plaintiff's DST constitute protectable "information"; 5) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff's DST design concepts had independent economic value and the finding that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets; 6) the trial court properly based its damages award on the reasonable royalty measure of damages, and did not err in awarding prejudgment interest; and 7) defendant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in basing its fee award on local hourly rates or shown the hourly rates employed by the trial court were unreasonable.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Google, which had initiated arbitration proceedings against two of its former employees, was entitled to obtain discovery from nonparty Uber. Google sought documents relating to Uber's purchase from the two former employees of a self-driving vehicle company called Ottomotto, which Google claimed the two employees created in breach of their contracts and fiduciary duties. Reversing the trial court, the California First Appellate District held that Uber could not withhold the requested documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.

WESTERN Sydney Wanderers’ newest recruit - Bruno Piñatares - has arrived from South America with a burning ambition “to win as many titles as possible”.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit arising from a terrible motorcycle accident that alleged defects in the tires and helmets involved failed because the plaintiffs didn't present admissible expert testimony to support their claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed an art museum's title to two oil paintings that the Nazis had stolen from the plaintiff's father-in-law during World War II. The plaintiff sued the museum to recover the two Renaissance masterpieces, but the museum insisted it had good title because the Dutch government validly conveyed the paintings after the war to the person who sold them to the museum. Concluding that the act-of-state doctrine applied here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the museum.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - Rejected a U.S. citizen's challenge to an order certifying him as extraditable to the Czech Republic, where he had been convicted of attempted extortion many years ago. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application seeking issuance of a subpoena to Google, Inc. for the disclosure of certain subscriber information to assist him in ongoing litigation in England. The district court granted Plaintiff’s application for the information from Google. Concluded that there was doubt whether 1782 could be used in a foreign proceeding and vacated and remanded for further proceedings in the district court.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against officers and directors of a company in which plaintiff invested, alleging false representations, following a default judgment for plaintiff, the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment on grounds that it did not have sufficient notice of punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.115(f) and that it was entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), is affirmed where: 1) due process requires that when a plaintiff moves for discovery terminating sanctions and seeks punitive damages, a statement under section 425.111(f) must be served a reasonable time before obtaining those sanctions; and 2) notice must be sufficient to afford a defendant the opportunity to fairly appraise the full amount of damages sought by the time he or she needs to respond and oppose the motion.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a derivative action against JPMorgan Chase & Co., alleging that the company's board wrongfully refused to investigate misstatements made by corporate executives regarding the "London Whale" trading incident, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff failed to meet the burden to please sufficient facts to rebut the strong presumption that the board's decision was valid under the business judgment rule.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

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

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(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.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Defendants claimed they were erroneously denied qualified immunity in a discrimination suit brought by a former employee. Because the District court conflated the standards under Title VII and Section 1983, the court reversed, entered judgment for the defendants, and remanded.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued alleging a hostile work environment and retaliatory firing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant. The appeals court found that Plaintiff was discharged during a probationary period and that he lacks evidence to take the matter to a jury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxpayers' suit alleging that a county government imposed a disproportionate tax on commercial and industrial properties in one particular township as opposed to similar types of properties elsewhere in the county. Held that the district court appropriately abstained from hearing this Equal Protection Clause suit under the comity doctrine.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. District court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification met the predominance requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s proposed damages model was consistent with his theory of liability, where cost-of-repair damages could be used in claims arising from a defective hydraulic clutch system.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a communications company's partnership dispute, arising out of the transfer of partnership assets without compensation, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds the decision to enter summary judgment in defendant's favor on the claim of fraud; and 2) vacated as to judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff's remaining claims where the District Court erred in concluding that tolling of the statute of limitations is categorically inappropriate when a plaintiff has inquiry notice before initiating a books and records action in the Delaware courts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an arbitration action, arising from a dispute between plaintiff electricity producer and defendant utility over which party bears the cost of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the trial court's vacating of the arbitration award to PG&E is reversed where the question of contact interpretation was ripe for arbitration and plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for postponing the arbitration process.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer by Uber, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear a putative class action brought by licensed taxicab drivers because the Public Utilities Code did not apply where the California Public Utilities Commission was in the process of developing rules relating to the company's activites and the second amended complaint failed to state a claim as to all causes of action.

(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.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the US imposition of antidumping duties on ThyssenKrupp because relief was available and as a result vacating a Court of International Trade ruling in a case relating to the import of steel products.

(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 Eighth Circuit) - Company was entitled to permanent injunction preventing company president from using the company's trade name and ISBN number on his book of poetry, as he did not have the company's permission to use them, since such use would cause confusion in the marketplace.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement and trade secret case arising out of a contract for plaintiff to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a 'PlumbBob' a gem-shaped icon from defendant's computer game, The Sims, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is: 1) affirmed in part as to the trade secrets claim, although on different grounds. where plaintiff's contribution to the PlumbBob USB drive, a design for the flash drive’s removal from the PlumbBob object, did not derive independent economic value from not being generally known to the public; and 2) reversed in part as to the copyright infringement claim where the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the Plumb Bob icon to qualify for copyright protection as a derivative work.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a finding of patent claim invalidity relating to patent claims for a hairstyling device. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding, on inter partes review, that the patent claims were invalid on grounds of anticipation and that the Board had mistakenly construed the claims more broadly than the description in the patent specification merited. On the correct claim construction, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not anticipated.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury case, alleging that plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical disabilities from in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor caused by a defective fuel hose, the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying at trial is affirmed where the experts did not rely on generally accepted principles and methodologies to reach their conclusions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for gang assault and weapons possession is reversed where the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's redacted statement to police violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and such error was not harmless.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case to determine whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 (2014 Law) to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law the district court's judgment that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA, but its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, the district court's judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the NCAA's rules are not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and are subject to the Rule of Reason; and 2) the district court's permanent injunction ordering the NCAA to allow members schools to pay students up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation was erroneous.