Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, Defendant and Respondent. S277211 Second Appellate District, Division Five B310118 Los Angeles County Superior Court BC574690 August 22,

CORRECTED 2/10/14 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY ON No. 12-15807 DEAFNESS, INC.; DANIEL JACOB; EDWARD KELLY; JENNIFER OLSON, D.C. No. on behalf of themselves and all 3:11-cv-03458- others similarly situated, LB Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OPINION CABLE NEWS NETWORK, I

* Pursuant to rules 976 and 976.1 of the California Rules of Court, only the following parts of this opinion are certified for publication: Introduction, part III and the Disposition. [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 438 OPINION This suit is the resu

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This appeal — which tests the boundaries of multiple state laws and reveals tensions between California’s anti-discrimination law, on one hand, and its anti-SLAPP statute, on the other — boils down to two central questions: Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 425.16 et seq., which pe

OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge. We must decide whether public sidewalks in the City of Sacramento are a service, program, or activity of the City within the meaning of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. We hold that they are and, accordingly, that the sidewalks are subject to program accessibility regulations

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TASHA WILLIAMSON, an individual, No. 20-55966 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:18-cv-02394- WQH-JLB CITY OF NATIONAL CITY; LUCKY NGUYEN; JOHN MCGOUCH, Defendants-Appellants. OPINION Appeal from the United States District C

Filed 4/22/20; Certified for publication 5/12/20 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JAMES WILLIS, D074988 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No.

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS, United States District Judge Plaintiff Catherine Bryan, proceeding pro se , filed her complaint, bringing civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(w), and 1986 ; Elder Financial Abuse claims under

Filed 10/20/22 See concurring and dissenting opinion CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, B310118 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC574690) v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judges Motz and Keenan wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory, and Judges King, Wynn, Floyd, Thacker, and Harris joined. Judge Keenan wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judges Motz and Thacker joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Niemeyer, Agee, Richardson, Quattlebaum, and Senior Judge Duncan joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a specially diss

292 F.3d 1073 Joan BARDEN; Susan Barnhill; Jeffrey Evans; Tony Martinez; Brenda Pickern; Jeff Thom; Suzanne Fitts Valters; Mitch Watkins, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CITY OF SACRAMENTO; Mike Kashiwagi, Director of the Department of Public Works of the City of Sacramento, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-15744. United States Court of Appea

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE No. 11-16240 BLIND, on behalf of its members and itself; MICHAEL MAY; MICHAEL D.C. No. HINGSON; CHRISTINA THOMAS, on 3:10-cv-04816- behalf of themselves and all others WHA similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Dkt. No. 8 JOSEPH C. SPERO, United States Magistrate Judge I. INTRODUCTION This action is brought by five blind registered voters of the County of Alameda, as well as California Council of the Blind, a membership organization of blind and visually impaired individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs

ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 4055487 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

689 F.Supp.2d 1265 (2010) Michael McNALL; and Karyl McNall, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY, an Oregon Corporation; and Christopher D. Mecca, Defendants. Civil No. 07-3075-CL. United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division. February 5, 2010. *1267 G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., G. Jefferson Campbell, P.C.

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

452 F.Supp.2d 946 (2006) NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the National Federation of the Blind of California, on behalf of their members, and Bruce F. Sexton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C 06-01802 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 6, 2006.

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

778 F.Supp.2d 375 (2011) BNP PARIBAS MORTGAGE CORPORATION and BNP Paribas, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Deutsche Bank AG, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant. Nos. 09 Civ. 9783 (RWS), 09 Civ. 9784 (RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 23, 2011. *380 Boies Schiller &am;

478 F.Supp.2d 1227 (2007) GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a New York corporation, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9, Eagle Point, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendant. Jackson County School District No. 9, Eagle Point, Plaintiff, v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, a New York corporation, Defendant. Civil Nos. 06-3035-CL, 06-3042-CL. United