The Federal District court had entered a $172M judgment in favor of MGA Entertainment Inc. and against Mattel, Inc. On appeal, in Case no. 11-56357, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the Judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that MGA's trade secret claims should not have reached the jury, and ordered the trial court to dismiss those claims without prejudice on remand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed attorney's fees awarded to MGA on its copyright infringement claims.

In this recent decision of Reynolds vs. United States, the High Court held that Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register.

Chevron U.S.A. sued Franchisee gas station owners for declaratory relief. Franchisee filed a counterclaim. After a 6-day trial, the court ruled in favor of Franchisor and found the conterclaim to be "frivolous." Held: Under the provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2805(d), Franchisor is entitled to recover its attorney's fees for defending Franchisee's frivolous counterclaim.

This case involved an e-mail advertisement sent to an unwitting individual, enticing her to participate in a "personality test", but in fact it was a prank. The advertisement participation agreement contained an arbitration clause which the participant had to agree to. Held: Since the entire agreement was fraud in inducement, the arbitration clause could not be enforced.

Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions. California Supreme Court Case No. S179115.

The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (or Check 21 Act) is a United States federal law, Pub.L. 108-100,, known as Check 21, makes it easier for banks to electronically transfer check images instead of physically transfer paper checks. This writing explains your rights under Check 21 as they relate to substitute checks. Substitute checks are special paper copies of the front and back of your original checks that are created to replace the original check.

Police stopped and questioned petitioner J. D. B., a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two home break ins.

The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 that AT&T may enforce its contract provision banning class actions and requiring individual arbitration in consumer disputes.

Respondent Dylan C. ran out the door of the non-secure juvenile detention facility to which he had been remanded pending his adjudication upon a juvenile delinquency petition. For absconding, he was charged in a second juvenile delinquency petition with the commission of acts which, if performed by an adult, would constitute the crime of escape in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), a class E felony. Family Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition alleging escape upon the ground that elopement1 from a non-secure facility did not fall within the proscription of

A district court, after a defendant’s sentence has been set aside on appeal, can consider evidence of a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation to support a downward variance when resentencing?