Latest news with #NinthCircuit
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein LLP Deepens Litigation Bench with Dual Partner Hire
Los Angeles-based Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein LLP (ADK) has announced the arrival of two new partners, Anthony Pacheco and M. Anthony (Tony) Brown, both former federal prosecutors. The move adds significant firepower to ADK's civil litigation, criminal defense, and internal and government investigations practices. ADK Partner Christine Adams commented, 'We are so honored to have Anthony and Tony join us. The firm now houses five federal prosecutors and veteran trial lawyers under one roof – a combination that will enable us to provide powerful advocacy to clients caught in the crosshairs of high-stakes litigation and investigations. Anthony's extensive public corruption experience and Tony's winning record as an appellate advocate will also deliver major value for clients across the life cycle of litigation.' A stalwart advocate and trusted advisor to clients across a range of industries, Pacheco handles complex civil litigation, parallel proceedings, internal and government investigations, and criminal prosecutions. At home in civil and criminal venues alike, he has litigated cases relating to federal and state healthcare fraud, securities and financial institution fraud, whistleblower claims, corporate espionage, False Claims Act, cybersecurity, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, shadow trading, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and mail and wire fraud. He has also handled more than 100 internal investigations for publicly traded and middle-market companies and managed an assortment of sensitive public relations issues. Brown handles a range of complex civil and criminal matters. Fluent in the intricacies of both trial and appellate practice, he has successfully tried cases in state and federal court, as well as before the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and the California Courts of Appeal. He regularly represents corporations, boards of directors, management and individuals in white collar criminal prosecutions, government investigations, enforcement actions, administrative proceedings and internal investigations arising from whistleblower complaints, with a particular emphasis on work for hospital systems. In this capacity, he has investigated and defended clients against allegations by federal and state agencies of financial mismanagement; violations of the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law; and the unlicensed practice of medicine occurring at ambulatory surgical centers. 'The opportunity to join forces with such talented lawyers and great people at a rising star firm is a special one,' Pacheco said. 'This is an exceptionally strong, energetic team with an ambitious vision for the future.' Brown added, 'As longtime friends and law partners, Anthony and I thrive on collaboration. ADK's collegial culture and commitment to top-tier client service make this firm the ideal environment for us. We look forward to practicing alongside professionals who share our values of honesty, integrity and professionalism.' Partner Adam Kamenstein said, 'Our team is incredibly fortunate to welcome these two outstanding litigators. Adding lawyers of their caliber to our already stellar roster further expands ADK's capacity to provide clients with world-class representation across a range of matters.' Information was sourced from Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein LLP. To learn more, contact
Phone Arena
4 days ago
- Business
- Phone Arena
Apple is trying to undo this court decision — and wants a new judge too
Apple has filed a new appeal in the Epic Games case, asking the Ninth Circuit Court to toss out a recent order that blocks it from charging commissions on in-app purchases made outside its App Store system. The company argues that the ruling goes too far and punishes behavior that isn't illegal. This legal move comes after a ruling in April, when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt. That decision claimed Apple was not following a 2021 injunction that originally forced it to allow developers to steer users to third-party payment options. In response, the judge issued a stronger order. Among other things, it banned Apple from taking any cut of purchases made through external links and added new rules on how developers can direct users to outside platforms. Apple says this updated order crosses a legal line. In its latest filing, the company claims that the court is using contempt powers to impose new restrictions that go beyond what was in the original decision. Apple also defended its 27% commission on purchases made through external links. It argued that while a court might find that rate too high, it doesn't justify removing commissions entirely. Apple said in the brief: — Apple In total, Apple is asking the appeals court to cancel the new injunction, reverse the contempt finding, and strike down five extra rules related to how developers can guide users to third-party payment systems. These include limits on button styles, template disclosures, and link placement. Apple is also requesting that if the case returns to district court, it be assigned to a new judge. The company says this would help preserve the appearance of fairness, since the current judge may have difficulty setting aside past opinions. In a statement to Law360, Apple said: — Apple Epic declined to comment on the matter at this time. Whether Apple can persuade the courts to side with them remains to be seen, but it looks like we have yet to see the conclusion of this ongoing battle. One thing is for sure, Apple is not letting up on this fight or the extra revenue it gets from in-app payments. Secure your connection now at a bargain price! We may earn a commission if you make a purchase Check Out The Offer
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court sides with Trump on National Guard deployment in LA
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has sided with President Donald Trump after California Governor Gavin Newsom sued his administration for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops during mass anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles that erupted earlier this month. 'We conclude that it is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority' by deploying the Guard, the appeals court wrote in a ruling late Thursday. The judges cited a federal law allowing the federalization of the Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Additionally, the judges wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, 'likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the Governor.' The appeals court order indefinitely blocks a previous order from U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer. Breyer ruled last Thursday that Trump's actions 'were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' 'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,' the judge wrote. The Trump administration quickly appealed Breyer's order, prompting the appeals court to temporarily pause the ruling the same night Breyer handed it down. During a previous hearing before Breyer, an attorney for California claimed the Trump administration was attempting a 'dangerous expansion of executive power' with its deployment of the Guard. Trump's team argued that the president rightfully used his powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and it communicated its orders to the state official responsible for the Guard. At one point in the hearing, Breyer suggested political leaders making decisions without checks and balances were more like the king against whom the 13 colonies revolted during the American Revolution. 'That's the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said, per Politico. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.' The Independent's Alex Woodward contributed reporting.
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
JD Vance bolts from DC to review the troops deployed by Trump in LA over ICE raid protests
Vice President JD Vance is traveling to Los Angeles Friday on a last-minute tour of facilities established for the Trump administration's mass deportation push and the crackdown on protests against those efforts using National Guard soldiers and active duty Marines. Vance's office said he will fly to the country's second-largest city on Friday to 'tour a multi-agency Federal Joint Operations Center, a Federal Mobile Command Center, meet with leadership and Marines and deliver brief remarks.' The announcement of his visit to California was made on Friday morning, and Vance's office did not release any information on the exact timing of his departure from Washington nor that of his planned arrival in California or the venue for his remarks. Although the White House traditionally makes the president and vice president's schedule public during travel within the United States, a source familiar with the administration's plans said the last-minute nature of the announcements and the lack of information about the trip was due to what they described as safety concerns. Vance's visit to the country's second-largest city comes less than a day after the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the Trump administration by allowing President Donald Trump to maintain control over 4,000 National Guard soldiers called into federal service as a result of mass protests against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. California Gov. Gavin Newsom had filed a lawsuit seeking to return the Guard to state control, arguing that Trump was bound to issue orders through him as the state's chief executive, and U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had previously issued an order directing the Guard back under Newsom's control after he found that Trump's actions 'were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' After hearing the government's appeal, the judges said Trump could maintain control while the case moves forward, citing a federal law allowing the federalization of the Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' They wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, 'likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the Governor.' The Trump administration is expected to continue aggressive deportation efforts in Los Angeles, as well as other large cities run by Democratic mayors as part of what the president has described as an effort to punish those cities for their failure to implement harsh anti-immigrant policies. In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said he was ordering Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to 'expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America's largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside." "These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens," the president added.
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump touts ruling on National Guard in LA
President Trump touted a 'big win' Friday morning in his fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over control of the state's National Guard, which Trump federalized earlier this month in response to protests against his immigration raids. A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday the president could retain control of the state's National Guard for the time being. 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' he added. Newsom argued Trump's decision to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the move. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Responding to the Thursday night ruling, Newsom said 'This fight doesn't end here' in a post on X. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The President is not a king and is not above the law,' he wrote. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he added. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. Breyer is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer, in his initial ruling, ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' he wrote. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) said the president was using soldiers as 'props' in a city where they are not needed. 'We need to remember who makes up the National Guard and the Marines — young men and women, pulled from their homes, families, and education, to do NOTHING,' she wrote in a Friday post on X.
