Recently in Court News Category

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.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blasted government lawyers for "bad faith" tactics in a case by a former Stanford researcher who was placed on the terrorist no-fly list.

In Ibrahim v. DHS, the en banc panel said the U.S. attorneys "played discovery games, made false representations," and otherwise misused the court process. And that was only the half of it.

The 11-member panel sent the case back to the trial judge to reassess the plaintiff's claim for $3.6 million in attorney's fees. As for plaintiff Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, she won her case five years ago.

San Francisco sued pharmacy companies for pushing opioids on the public by misleading people about the addictive dangers of the prescription drugs.

In City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma, the municipality alleges that Purdue Pharma and other companies aggressively marketed Oxycontin and other drugs knowing their high potential for abuse. The painkillers have contributed to an epidemic that has killed tens of thousands of Americans.

The lawsuit says the drugs were meant for people who suffer acute pain, but the defendants encourage opioid use for "the masses who suffer from common chronic pain."

Salil Parulekar must have thought he was pretty smart.

He had a management job at Tesla, overseeing the company's relationship with global suppliers. When he saw Tesla was cutting off one supplier, he figured out a way to impersonate another supplier and divert $9.3 million to himself.

At least that's how prosecutors described the scheme in United States of America v. Parulekar. For Parulekar, it means he'll have to figure out how to avoid 20 years in prison and about $2.5 million in fines.

Though federal courts around the country have been more and more accepting of LGBT litigants over the years, the federal appellate court bench has been rather devoid of LGBT representation.

President Trump has nominated an openly gay judge to one of the open seats on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Notably, the nominee, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Bumatay, would be the second ever openly gay federal appellate court judge, and the first for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Walker was not open about it and did not confirm his sexual orientation until after retiring from the bench).

Who are the Chamorros?

The simple answer is: the indigenous people of Guam. But it leads to a more complicated question in a case pending before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Who should be allowed to vote for the political future of the island? That is a question the appeals court must answer in Davis v. Guam, and it won't be easy.

A Native American group is entitled to $8.6 million from a Canadian company that polluted the Columbia River, a federal appeals court ruled.

In Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision against the mining company. The award will repay the cost of investigation and attorney's fees in the case.

Now that the courts have found the company liable, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation will pursue damages. They are dealing with nearly a century of water pollution.

As President Trump reshapes the federal courts through judicial appointments, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering even bigger changes.

The House Judiciary Committee has approved three wide-ranging bills, which will now go to the entire legislative body. The measures cover so many subjects that the American Bar Association has asked the lawmakers to slow down.

ABA President Bob Carson said the proposals deserve more time for review. But one bill -- to split the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- has been there before.

A federal judge issued an injunction against publishing plans for 3D-printed guns -- again.

After the U.S. State Department said a company could publish the plans on the internet on Aug. 1, the judge issued a temporary restraining order at the request of 19 states and the District of Columbia. They said the plans could lead to felons and terrorists getting undetectable plastic guns.

Judge Robert Lasnik then extended his emergency order, basically saying he had to protect law-abiding Americans. Apparently the threat was imminent, even though the plans were first released five years ago.

Seattle was ahead of its time when it gave for-hire drivers the chance to unionize in 2016.

Unfortunately for Uber drivers and others, their lawsuit challenging the city ordinance was also premature. In Clark v. City of Seattle, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said their claims are not ripe.

The for-hire drivers said the ordinance violated the National Labor Relations Act and their First Amendment rights. Not now they don't, according to the appeals court.