Twelve former NFL players and one widow have had the dismissal of their case against their former teams affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

After all that has come to light in the CTE fallout, the case probably would have at least been illuminating, if not impactful. The former players were alleging a civil conspiracy, under RICO, that the teams were overmedicating the players, without providing the players with adequate information about the consequences, which cut-short their careers. Unfortunately for the former players and one widow, as the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the case was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations.

A surprising new trend out of the Pacific Northwest involves bikini clad baristas serving coffee in drive-thru coffee stands.

The bikini baristas have taken social media by storm, and have received a surprisingly welcoming reception from almost everyone, except the cities that have been trying to regulate these businesses out of existence. And if you're not convinced that this is an important constitutional matter, just consider the level of analysis the attorney for the city of Everett provides when explaining what an "anal cleft" is to the Ninth Circuit panel of judges: "There is only one vertical opening made as if by splitting that could be associated with the anus on the human body."

The full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of granting a preliminary injunction preventing the San Francisco soda label and advertising warning law from taking effect until the litigation challenging it concludes.

The appellees sought review of the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction. After a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, the en banc court stepped in to review the matter. The full court upheld the panel's reversal, finding that the beverage and advertising industry challengers had shown a likelihood of success on the merits based upon the heavy burdens the warning labels would impose.

According to a panel of judges at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the way that individuals are moved on to the terrorist watch list does not require reasonable suspicion and does not equate to an investigation.

In short, the court upheld the right of investigators to share information that came from tips and leads, which require "mere suspicion" rather than "reasonable suspicion" in order to be acted upon. The case came to light after men who were just going about their normal days, doing completely normal things, were reported as suspicious and landed on the watch list.

The Dragon Box lawsuit has, after a year, been settled. But unlike most settlements, Dragon Box agreed to have a stipulated judgment taken against them to the tune of $14.5 million, and various injunctive relief that all but shuts down the company as consumers know it today.

However, given how flagrant Dragon Box's conduct was, effectively turning their customers into web-pirates stealing streaming services, the massive settlement and unfavorable terms still seem preferable to what could have been awarded had the litigation proceeded.

Yahoo lawyers right now are probably not liking Judge Lucy Koh, who denied their proposed settlement in the biggest data breach case in history.

In Re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Koh said the settlement did not disclose the size of the settlement. It's hard to know whether a settlement is fair with that information, she said.

It's clear, however, that the parties want to wind up the litigation. And that's another problem, the judge said.

For many disabled students in the state of Oregon, the schools are failing. Rather than providing the "meaningful" education that is required by law, schools are sending students home early if they are not equipped to properly serve those students.

In addition to sending disabled students home, many are often taught in segregated settings and not given opportunities to learn in the standard classroom learning environment amongst peers. And while it might seem like individualized or specialized classroom settings would be beneficial, research shows that disabled students also need to be part of the standard classroom as well.

A recent opinion of a panel of justices at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal is sending the ADA case against Domino's Pizza's website and app back to the district court to be litigated.

The case had been dismissed because the district court simply didn't seem to know what to do with the case. It explained that because the DOJ had not promulgated regulations on what constituted ADA compliance when it came to a public accommodation's website, the court could not actually do anything. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, reversed, and remanded the matter.

A judge in the Northern District of California has issued an order denying a search warrant due to the warrant seeking to go too far when it comes to smartphones and biometrics.

The warrant not only sought the inspection of smartphones belonging to the individuals identified in the warrant, but also sought to search all smartphones of all individuals discovered on the premises covered by the warrant, and in doing so, would have required those individuals to provide the necessary biometric data, such as a fingerprint, or face, to unlock the device. Judge Kandis Westmore said no.

A three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit has upheld the federal ban on undocumented immigrants possessing firearms.

The case, U.S. v. Torres, involved an undocumented immigrant who was arrested for possession of a firearm, a homemade silencer, bolt cutters, and a stolen bicycle.