The Brief, July 16, 2026
NATIONAL
Deere agreed on July 8 to settle the monopolization suit brought by the FTC and five states over farm equipment repair restrictions. The company must give farmers and independent providers the same diagnostic and repair resources its authorized dealers get, for ten years under agency supervision. Repair-access restrictions are now live antitrust exposure well beyond agriculture, and the consent terms read like a template for follow-on private claims.
CVS Caremark settled the FTC's administrative case alleging it preferred higher-list-price insulin products to inflate rebates. Caremark must prefer the lowest-cost drugs on its standard formularies and pass negotiated savings through to clients, under a compliance monitor and with no monetary penalty. Firms representing plan sponsors, employers, or independent pharmacies get new contract leverage and a public roadmap of PBM rebate practices.
CALIFORNIA & LA
The California Supreme Court kills the dismiss-and-appeal shortcut (15 minute read)
In Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants' Medical Group (S290188, decided today, July 16), the court held that plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice to expedite an appeal of adverse demurrer rulings forfeited the right to appeal: the dismissal terminated the action before any pleaded claim was finally resolved. After a partial demurrer loss, the options are amend and litigate, or seek writ review. Dismissing to manufacture an appealable judgment is dead.
In Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court (E086569, July 13), Division Two of the Fourth District held that Education Code section 44808 does not bar claims for off-campus injuries when the plaintiff pleads an on-site negligent act, expressly declining to follow its own Mosley and Leroy decisions. The split with the division's own precedent opens a pleading path for tort claims against districts and makes the issue a candidate for Supreme Court review.
The State Bar's Los Angeles Superior Court fraud and contract action against Meazure Learning ended in a settlement signed July 13: Meazure pays $5.25 million within 45 days and waives a $1.36 million invoice for its services. The institutional chapter of the remote-testing debacle is closed.
ORANGE COUNTY
OC Superior Court expands electronic evidence submission to Civil Unlimited trials (2 minute read)
The court is expanding its Electronic Evidence Portal for submission and presentation of evidence in selected Civil Unlimited courtrooms, for both court and jury trials, effective July 1. If your trial lands in a participating department, exhibit upload belongs on the trial-prep checklist next to the notebooks.
In Damak v. Superior Court (G065583, July 8, certified for publication), the Fourth District's Orange County division granted a self-represented plaintiff's writ, holding the trial court erred by denying monetary sanctions on granted motions to compel solely because he showed no expenses, without considering CCP section 2023.050, which makes a $1,000 sanction mandatory for document-request abuses regardless of the other side's costs. Ignoring discovery now carries sanctions exposure even against in pro per opponents, and the panel pointedly directed reconsideration in light of its discussion of civility.
AI & PRACTICE
The court reprimanded Florida lawyer Anthony Sabatini for filing briefs with nonexistent AI-generated citations in an employment case and referred him to its Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct, writing that outsourcing legal work to an AI algorithm violated his duties to his clients and the court. The verification burden sits with the signing lawyer, now stated at the federal appellate level.
English law statement: refusing to use AI can itself be negligent (4 minute read)
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce published a legal statement concluding that existing private law already handles AI liability, and that a professional can breach the duty of care by using AI carelessly or by declining to use it where a reasonable professional of comparable rank and specialism would have. It is English law, not ours, but it is the first authoritative statement running malpractice risk in both directions, and the argument will travel.