(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit alleging that Domino's Pizza's website and mobile application were not fully accessible to blind or visually impaired persons. The plaintiff, a blind man, alleged that he had no way to order pizzas or other food online. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a political cartoonist and blogger could not proceed with his lawsuit alleging that a newspaper wrongfully terminated his employment and also defamed him by telling its readers that it had serious questions about the accuracy of one of his blog posts. Affirmed the granting of the newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the amount in controversy in an employee class action was too low for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). An employer that had been sued for allegedly violating wage-hour laws, and that removed the case to federal court under CAFA, argued that the district court erred in remanding the case to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the employer that, in assessing the amount in controversy, the district court should have included future attorney fees recoverable by statute or contract. The panel therefore reversed and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a state law fraud lawsuit against an investment adviser was precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The statute's definition of a "covered class action" includes any class action brought by a named plaintiff on a representative basis, regardless of the proposed class size. Affirmed a dismissal.

(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.

(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) - Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 580d, the California Supreme Court held that a creditor holding two deeds of trust on the same property may recover a deficiency judgment on the junior lien extinguished by a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on the senior lien.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. Plaintiffs brought a tort action against Defendants for a fatal tour bus accident that occurred in Arizona. The parties originally included plaintiffs from China and defendants from Indiana and California. The trial court determined that Indiana law governed the suit. Before trial a settlement was reached with the Indiana defendant. A Motion in Limine was brought to reconsider the choice of law because of the settlement. The Supreme Court held that a settlement did not require the trial to reconsider the choice of law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A franchise's preliminary injunction against a franchisee operating a competing company was upheld in a lawsuit over the franchisee's alleged violation of franchise agreements. The district court should have included more detail regarding the likelihood of success on the merits by the movant, but there was enough to establish that the order wasn't an abuse of discretion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A company sued a former employee who went to work for a direct competitor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction because there was an employment agreement with a non-compete provision.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court improperly reduced the amount of attorney fees to which vehicle purchasers were entitled after prevailing in a lemon law suit. Reversed and remanded with instructions to award the plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a consumer could not proceed with a proposed class action challenging electricity rates in the wake of market deregulation. Affirmed summary judgment against his breach of contract, unfair trade practice and other claims alleging that a retail electricity supplier charged unlawful rates.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by reporting to a credit bureau that a debtor had nine unpaid bills of $60, rather than simply indicating an aggregate debt of $540. Reversed the district court, in this case involving co-pays for physical therapy sessions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure is constitutionally permissible. A law firm raised the argument in contending that it was not required to comply with the bureau's investigative demand to respond to interrogatories about its debt relief services and marketing. The Ninth Circuit rejected the law firm's position.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tenant's lawsuit against a company that screens prospective tenants. He brought the suit after being denied housing due to criminal history disclosures appearing in his tenant screening report. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and several California statutes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, affirmed a preliminary injunction freezing the assets of companies that allegedly had made deceptive representations regarding loan modification services.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a car purchaser's successful lemon law suit, held that the trial court used an improper method to determine reasonable attorney fees. Remanded for a recalculation of the fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a debt collection action, the court found that Defendant was liable for the debt, but found that the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff attorney fees related to the defense of counterclaims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Restitution award vacated. The FTC sued Defendant for several violations of consumer protection statutes. The trial court found for the FTC, entered a permanent injunction against Defendant and ordered $5 million in restitution to the FTC. The appeals court affirmed the judgment as to the violations of consumer statutes and the injunction but held that restitution was not authorized by section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(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 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.