(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(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.

(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) - 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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(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 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) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in a class action brought by plaintiff-stockholders challenging the fairness of a corporate merger is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in light of plaintiffs' Affidavit outlining the discovery they needed to respond to the dispositive motion; and 2) plaintiffs should have been afforded the opportunity to conduct additional discovery.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

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

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(NY Supreme Court) - 529952

(NY Supreme Court) - 527621

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(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) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(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.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. Partial enforcement to produce discovery documents in an equal protection claim vacated, where Plaintiffs did not have standing. There is no legally protected interest under which the board members of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority can assert a claim over disparate treatment compared to other municipalities regarding the passage of S.B. 2162.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Appeals court affirmed district court's decision that the federal tax lien was enforceable even though it had errors on the document. The appeals court held that even with the errors there was adequate notice of the lien, because it conformed to the IRS code.

(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) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of a petition arguing that the petitioner's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when they conceded that charges were timely under the applicable statute of limitations before the trial where they were convicted of sexually abusing their daughter, but the court felt that counsel's decision to forego statutes of limitations arguments was not objectively unreasonable.

(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.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Determining that the sentencing court in a criminal case did not plainly err in designating a defendant a career offender did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to that designation because the standards for review of the decisions do not necessarily result in equivalent outcomes, but that in the present case the failure to do so resulted in ineffective assistance and the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a musician whose video was taken down from YouTube, which posted a statement that the video had violated their terms of service, because using violence and profanity as examples of things that could result in the removal of a video did not amount to libel.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit contending that the First Amendment required the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to release newly filed complaints to the press at the moment of receipt by her office -- not after processing. Ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded that a cable television operator unlawfully refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, on interlocutory appeal.