NEWARK, N.J. — Three women who allege that they and others like them each spent thousands of dollars on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cannot establish standing under a benefit-of-the-bargain theory, a New Jersey federal judge found, granting a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturers of a testing product.

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge on Oct. 9 granted a Dubai-based joint venture’s motion, first filed in 2021, for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred compelling discovery during proceedings related to its enforcement of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) award in its favor worth more than $1.8 billion against telecommunications companies and an Iraqi businessman that was confirmed in 2024 but denied the venture’s request for sanctions.

ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Georgia insureds’ argument that a lower court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in favor of their insurer in a coverage dispute over an underlying nuisance, negligence and trespass action brought by their neighbors, holding that a “live controversy persisted at all stages of” the lawsuit and that the insurer’s claims “handily” satisfied the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1332, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amici curiae on Oct. 8 filed five briefs in support of New Jersey’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that affirmed an injunction against the enforcement of New Jersey gambling laws against KalshiEX LLC, a federally regulated prediction-market exchange that allows customers to buy and sell contracts based on the outcomes of sporting events and other future occurrences, arguing from different perspectives that Congress did not use the Dodd-Frank Act to transfer regulation of sports betting from states and Native American tribes to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three litigation funders on Oct. 8 filed a supplemental brief telling the U.S. Supreme Court that their petition for a writ of certiorari is not moot, despite a tribunal’s new award declining to exercise jurisdiction over an application for discovery brought against them by a German claims aggregator, and arguing that the court should still grant their petition based on the underlying jurisdictional issue, vacate the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling and remand the case.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an amicus curiae brief, federal government urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, arguing that the appellate court erred in finding the materiality of omitted interim financial information to be sufficient without also determining whether the omission caused an affirmative statement to be misleading.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Following the Florida Supreme Court’s determination, in answer to a certified question, that an appeals court erred in its interpretation of Florida Statutes Section 768.72(1) when it refused to allow petitioners to amend their counterclaims to seek punitive damages against a neighbor, his insurer and the insurer’s counsel in a lawsuit arising from “hate mail” letters, the appeals court panel on remand affirmed without discussion the trial court’s order permitting amendment of the counterclaims to seek punitive damages against the neighbor but reversed the lower court’s order allowing amendment of counterclaims against the insurer and the insurer’s counsel.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ahead of the Oct. 9 U.S. Supreme Court conference for which their certiorari petition has been distributed, participants in “top hat” deferred compensation and retirement plans filed a response to the government’s amicus curiae brief that said “this case’s idiosyncratic factual context makes it an unsuitable vehicle for clarifying the propriety of surcharge relief” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act even though the government viewed the challenged decision as erroneous.