A September 14, 2026 filing in 4:23-cv-00770 tees up one of the most consequential phases of aggregate litigation: class certification. In No. 418, Motion to Certify Class, plaintiff Jill E. asks the Northern District of California to allow the case to proceed on behalf of a broader group rather than as an individual dispute. View full case on Docket Alarm

At a high level, a class-certification motion seeks a ruling that the plaintiff can represent absent class members under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A massage therapist has revived sexual assault claims against Harvey Weinstein and Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan in New York state court, reasserting allegations that had previously appeared in a federal sex-trafficking suit that was dismissed. The new filing by Kellye Croft shifts the dispute into a different procedural posture and puts a closely watched celebrity civil case back on the litigation track.

The renewed complaint is significant not only because of the defendants’ profiles, but because it illustrates a familiar strategic move in high-stakes misconduct litigation: when a federal theory fails, plaintiffs may attempt to reframe the case under state-law causes of action with different pleading standards, remedies, and jurisdictional dynamics.

A Texas bankruptcy judge has approved the Chapter 11 plan for CVS subsidiary Omnicare, marking the latest turn in a restructuring shaped by both an asset sale and a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The confirmation is notable not just because it advances Omnicare’s exit from bankruptcy, but because it shows how a company facing major healthcare-related liabilities can use Chapter 11 to resolve overlapping business, litigation, and government enforcement problems in a single forum.

The Omnicare case drew attention after the company was hit with a massive fraud judgment, creating pressure on its balance sheet and forcing hard questions about how private claimants, federal enforcement interests, and the debtor’s remaining enterprise value could be reconciled.

In a closely watched state-law ruling, the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066, a voter-approved measure designed to curb state and local efforts to move buildings and utilities away from natural gas. In Climate Solutions v. State, the court held that the initiative violated the Washington Constitution’s single-subject rule, rendering the measure invalid.

The decision matters well beyond ballot-law procedure.

The Associated Press scored a notable courtroom win Thursday in its copyright dispute with the producers behind a documentary tied to the Alex Murdaugh murder trial, after a federal judge ruled that AP owns the rights to a post-verdict interview with the trial’s dismissed “egg juror” and that the agreement used to secure that interview is valid and enforceable.

The dispute centered on whether AP had exclusive rights to the juror’s account after negotiating and paying for the interview shortly after the highly publicized South Carolina trial.

Netskope, Inc. has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening PTAB docket IPR2026-00474 on September 15, 2026. For patent litigators and in-house IP teams, this is the kind of proceeding worth monitoring early: even at the filing stage, an IPR can signal a broader enforcement dispute, a defensive campaign against a competitor’s portfolio, or a strategic effort to reshape parallel district court litigation.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies Netskope, Inc. as the petitioner, but the full petition and accompanying papers will be critical to pin down the complete picture — including the specific patent being challenged, the patent owner, and the precise prior-art grounds asserted.

A Pennsylvania federal judge has taken the unusual step of urging an investigation into Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office over its handling of a man’s yearslong attempt to overturn a murder conviction. The development stands out because the court’s concern is not limited to the integrity of the conviction itself; it extends to whether prosecutors or officials in a major urban DA’s office may have engaged in conduct warranting criminal scrutiny.

That distinction matters.

Senate Democrats have blocked a major crypto market-structure proposal known as the “Clarity Act,” slowing what could have been one of the most consequential federal regulatory resets for digital assets in years. Supporters pitched the bill as a way to define when crypto products fall under securities laws versus commodities regulation, while opponents raised concerns about investor protection, oversight gaps, and ethics issues tied to President Trump’s crypto-related interests.

For legal professionals, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the current patchwork remains in force.

Federal prosecutors have unsealed a superseding indictment in the Southern District of Georgia charging five defendants in an alleged scheme to abuse the H-2A agricultural worker visa program, fraudulently secure visas, and smuggle individuals into the United States. According to the Justice Department, the case centers on allegations that the defendants used the temporary agricultural worker program as a vehicle for unlawful entry and exploitation rather than lawful seasonal employment.

The charges are significant because they sit at the intersection of several enforcement priorities at once: immigration fraud, labor-program abuse, document and application misrepresentations, and organized human smuggling.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s September 10, 2026 order in IPR2025-01593 is not a merits ruling, but it is still worth practitioners’ attention. The Board entered a modified scheduling order, adjusting the case calendar that will govern the parties’ deadlines through the remainder of the inter partes review. While these orders can look routine, they often reveal how the PTAB is balancing efficiency, fairness, and the practical demands of contested patent proceedings.

At bottom, the Board decided that the existing schedule should be changed.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued Humboldt Merchant Services, alleging the payment processor knowingly enabled scam operators and shell merchants to access the payments system for unauthorized billing and deceptive consumer charges. The agency’s theory is notable: rather than focusing only on the merchants that allegedly carried out the scams, the FTC is aiming at the infrastructure provider it says made those schemes possible.

According to the FTC, Humboldt processed payments for entities tied to sham businesses and billing operations that allegedly lacked legitimate merchant activity.

Amazon.com Services LLC has filed a new inter partes review petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening IPR2026-00471 on September 11, 2026.

A California federal judge has rejected CashCall’s latest bid to unwind a $157 million Consumer Financial Protection Bureau judgment, preserving a major consumer-finance enforcement result in a case that has been litigated for years. The decision is significant not only because of the size of the judgment, but also because the court reportedly took a dim view of the company’s repeated efforts to avoid finality.

The dispute arises from the CFPB’s long-running challenge to a lending program tied to tribal entities, where CashCall was accused of using a tribal-lending structure to make high-interest loans that violated state usury and consumer-protection laws.

Monday’s legal news cycle underscored how quickly the terrain can shift for companies, litigants, and enforcement targets when multiple branches of the legal system move at once. The day’s most significant developments, as highlighted in a major national roundup, centered on the kinds of events that immediately affect legal strategy: court rulings, consequential filings, enforcement actions, legislative movement, and criminal matters.

While the underlying stories span different subject areas, the common thread is practical impact.

A new post-grant review, PGR2026-00074, has been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against MightySlab Distribution Company LLC, putting one of the company’s patents directly in the PTAB spotlight. The petition was filed on September 9, 2026. For patent litigators, prosecutors, and in-house IP counsel, this is the kind of early-stage PTAB matter worth monitoring closely as the record develops.

At this stage, the publicly available docket information identifies the proceeding by the patent owner’s name, but the key practical takeaway is clear: a petitioner is seeking post-grant review of a recently issued patent owned by MightySlab Distribution Company LLC.