Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
(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.
Moen v. Regents of the University of California
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed decertification of a class of retired University of California employees who claimed they were denied promised health insurance benefits. The retirees, who had worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, appealed the trial court's ruling that decertified the class for lack of commonality. On appeal, the First Appellate District held that the trial court's decertification ruling had relied on erroneous legal standards.
Mielo v. Steak 'N Shake Operations, Inc.
(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed the certification of a class in a lawsuit alleging that a restaurant chain violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because its parking lots were difficult to ambulate in a wheelchair. The 500-location restaurant chain contended that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy some of the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Agreeing, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to reconsider if a class should be certified.
Langan v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated the certification of a consumer class action alleging that Johnson & Johnson deceptively labeled several of its baby bath products as being natural when they were not. The district court had certified a class consisting of consumers who purchased the products in eighteen states. On appeal, the Second Circuit was not convinced that the district court had carefully considered the material differences in the state laws at issue before concluding that their similarities predominated over their differences, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded.
Franchise Tax Bd. Limited Liability Corp. Tax Refund Cases
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the denial of class certification in a case involving tax refund claims filed by limited liability companies (LLCs) which sought refunds of a levy they had paid pursuant to a California tax statute that was later determined to be unconstitutional. When the district court denied the LLCs' motion for class certification on multiple grounds including predominance and superiority, they appealed. Agreeing with the LLCs that this case was suitable for treatment on a classwide basis, the First Appellate District reversed and remanded for certification of a class or classes consistent with its opinion.
True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of class certification in an action where a healthcare company was accused of unlawfully sending unsolicited faxed advertisements in violation of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The district court denied the motion for class certification on the ground that individual issues would predominate over issues common to the putative class. On an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed and remanded for further proceedings.
Hill v. Volkswagen, AG
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the approval of a consumer class action settlement in a case where Volkswagen entered into the $10-billion settlement with a class of consumers after the automaker admitted that it had installed devices in certain 2009 - 2015 diesel model diesel cars for the purpose of cheating on U.S. emissions tests. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a settlement class or approving the settlement as fair and adequate.
Walsh v. Defenders, Inc.
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed an order remanding a consumer class action to state court. The defendant home security equipment businesses had removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, but the plaintiffs showed that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied. The Third Circuit noted that under the local-controversy exception, a district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action involving a uniquely local controversy, as defined in the statute.
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh
(United States Supreme Court) - Holding that a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual claim, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations and reversing and remanding the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a District Court dismissal of an untimely class complaint.
People v. Moses
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed for human trafficking of a minor but affirmed in all other respects. Defendant was convicted of pimping a minor and human trafficking. Defendant argued that the human trafficking count should be reversed because the alleged minor was actually an undercover police officer. The appeals court agreed and remanded for re-sentencing.
White v. Square, Inc.
(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.
Khrapunov v. Prosyankin
(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.
People v. Jacobo
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment, but remanded for sentencing on certain counts. Defendant convicted of 60 sex offenses, including human trafficking, contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, and sending harmful matter to a minor. Defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions. Appeals court held that six of Defendant’s convictions must be reduced to sending harmful material to a minor.
People v. Wright
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order granting probation with amendments. Defendant admitted to acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud. The trial court placed Defendant on probation with various terms and conditions. Defendant appealed the conditions. Appeals court affirmed, but struck certain fees.
In re US Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation
(United States DC Circuit) - Revived claims that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's woefully inadequate cybersecurity practices enabled hackers to steal personal data about millions of past and present federal employees. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and others arising out of a 2014 cyberattack.
Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Struck down as unconstitutional a 2015 amendment to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act that created a debt-collection exception. The issue arose in a consumer lawsuit alleging that Facebook unlawfully sent text messages using an automated telephone dialing system (to alert users, as a security precaution, when their account was accessed from an unrecognized device). Reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action.
Marshall's Locksmith Service v. Google, LLC
(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.
In re Holl
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a retail customer must arbitrate a dispute with a package delivery company because the online contract he electronically signed contained an enforceable arbitration clause. Denied a writ of mandamus, in this proposed class action lawsuit challenging pricing practices.
BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Erickson Productions, Inc. v. Kast
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a business owner contributorily infringed copyrighted photographs by displaying them on his website. However, remanded for further proceedings on whether the infringement was willful.
Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a citizen's claim that a sheriff's office Facebook page unconstitutionally censored speech. She claimed that her controversial comments were deleted and she was banned from the site, in violation of her First Amendment rights. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.
VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, reversed a judgment after a jury trial, in part. A photography studio claimed that Zillow violated its copyrights in photographs of homes.
HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica
(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.
US v. Ayelotan
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the convictions of three individuals for operating an international romance scam, in which they used online dating methods to dupe unsuspecting victims into sending money to them. The charges included conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud and identify theft.
US v. Lord
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction of two bitcoin dealers for conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money servicing business. The father and son sought to withdraw their guilty pleas, stating that they now believed their cryptocurrency activities required no license. Upheld the denial of their motion to withdraw their guilty pleas.
Patel v. Zillow, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that homeowners could not proceed with a lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, which allegedly estimated their homes to have inaccurately low values, thus making it difficult for them to obtain favorable sales prices. Affirmed a dismissal of their unfair trade practice and other claims.
Rall v. Tribune 365 LLC
(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.
Moss v. Princip
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a dispute over ownership of a lucrative YouTube channel, held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in dismissing a nondiverse partnership as dispensable. Also affirmed a judgment entered on a jury verdict.
Robles v. Domino's Pizza LLC
(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.
Keep Chicago Livable v. City of Chicago
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Remanded for further findings as to whether a citizen group and six individuals had legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chicago's recently enacted Shared Housing Ordinance, which regulates home-sharing activities, including services offered by companies like Airbnb.
In re A.A.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a juvenile court's probation condition prohibiting an offender from discussing his case on social media. The teenager, who had been bragging online about being in trouble with the law, argued that the probation condition was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
Meador v. Apple, Inc.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that Apple Inc. was not liable for a fatal car crash that happened when a distracted driver looked down to read a text message on her iPhone 5. The suit alleged that the iPhone caused the accident because it had no lockout mechanism. Affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that Texas law would not regard a driver's neurobiological response to a smartphone notification as a cause of a car crash.
Modisette v. Apple Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Apple Inc. was not liable for a five-year-old girl's death and injuries to her family members that occurred when a driver using the FaceTime application on his iPhone crashed into her parents' car on a Texas highway. Affirmed dismissal of the complaint, concluding that Apple did not owe a duty of care and that the iPhone's design was not a proximate cause.
Calvert v. Binali
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $2 million default judgment entered in favor of a plastic surgeon who sued a former patient for allegedly posting an anonymous review online commenting negatively on her plastic surgery experience. Held that faulty service by publication rendered the judgment void on its face.
Roe v. Halbig
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a blogger who moved to quash a subpoena was entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party, in a case where a crowdfunding campaign originator alleged that he was defamed online. Remanded for recalculation of the fee award.
Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the certification of a class action alleging that a software company's downloadable product to improve computer speed and performance was a scam. Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass of software purchasers.
Rynearson v. Ferguson
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a constitutional challenge to Washington's cyberstalking law should not have been dismissed on grounds of abstention. Due to certain online postings, the plaintiff was the subject of a state court stalking protection order. He responded by filing an action in federal court seeking a declaration that Washington's cyberstalking law is unconstitutional. Reversing and remanding, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the doctrine to abstain from hearing the case.
US v. Gonzalez
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a brother's and sister's convictions and life sentences for conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and cyberstalking resulting in death. The two siblings were indicted after their father shot and killed the brother's ex-wife and himself. On appeal, the siblings both disputed the constitutionality of the statutes under which they were convicted and also brought numerous other challenges to their convictions and sentences. However, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all respects, in a case that the appellate panel said involved numerous issues of first impression.
State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
(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.
Culliane v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(United States First Circuit) - Reversed and remanded in a case involving the enforcement of arbitration clauses in online contracts. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant alleging violations of Massachusetts consumer-protection statute. Defendant operates a ride-sharing service requiring customers to register using the Uber App. In the app is a page that has a button that will take you to Terms and Conditions, which a user is not required to accept and which contains an agreement to arbitrate any dispute. The district court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. In reversing and remanding the First Circuit held that the terms of the agreement were not reasonably communicated to plaintiffs.
James v. J2 Cloud Services
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim for correction of inventorship and state law claims for lack of jurisdiction in the case of a man claiming to be the sole inventor of a patent for accepting incoming messages over a circuit switched network and transmitting it over a packet switched network because the assignment of the patent did not necessarily preclude the plaintiff from retaining ownership rights over the patent that would support the suit.
US v. Microsoft Corporation
(United States Supreme Court) - Declaring a writ of certiorari petition moot in the case of Microsoft's attempt to avoid providing emails pursuant to a Government warrant investigating the drug trade because a new warrant was issued under a new law that, unlike the old version, permitted the Government to demand emails stored on overseas datacenters under Trump's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Page
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
Hiam v. Homeaway.com
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment for the defendant website in a suit claiming it misled users who paid thousands of dollars to reserve a vacation rental property in Belize that apparently didn't exist because they determined that the use of the word guarantee is not a warranty or representation and there was no implication that the website investigated its listings.
Two-Way Media v. Comcast Cable Communications
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action relating to a series of patents concerning a system for streaming audio/visual data over a communications system like the internet, the district court's judgment that the asserted patents are ineligible subject matter under 25 U.S.C. section 101 is affirmed where the claims are directed at abstract ideas and contain no additional elements transforming them into patent-eligible applications.
Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, arising from a copyright infringement action brought by plaintiffs, American companies in the natural foods industry, against defendant, a UK limited company, after defendant sent an email newsletter containing plaintiffs' logos to 343 email addresses, the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where defendant's suit-related conduct did not create a substantial connection with California.
Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action, construing the term 'pivot table' in relation to two of plaintiff's patents, the district court's 1) claim construction is affirmed as supported by intrinsic evidence; but its 2) indefiniteness determination is reversed because the claims' scopes are reasonably certain.
Skulason v. California Bureau of Real Estate
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.
Packingham v. North Carolina
(United States Supreme Court) - Conviction under a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for a registered sex offender 'to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages,' N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. sections14-202.5(a) and (e), is reversed where the North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/CSS
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a complaint challenging Upstream surveillance, an electronic surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. section 1801 et seq., the district court's dismissal of the complaint on grounds that the allegations in the complaint were too speculative to establish Article III standing, under Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), is: 1) vacated as to Wikimedia-plaintiff where Clapper's analysis of speculative injury does not control this case, since the central allegations here are not speculative, and plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to survive a facial challenge to standing; and 2) affirmed as to the other plaintiffs because the complaint does not contain enough well-pleaded facts entitled to the presumption of truth to establish their standing.