The Brief, July 29, 2026
NATIONAL
On July 24, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the District of Maryland sentenced Thomas C. Goldstein, the SCOTUSblog co-founder and "prominent appellate attorney who argued more than 40 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court," to 72 months in prison, five years of supervised release and $3,103,427 in restitution, then revoked his bond and remanded him into custody. A jury convicted him in February on 12 of 16 counts involving hidden poker winnings, money moved through foreign accounts, and more than $14 million in poker debts left off mortgage applications. The count that should hold a firm owner's attention is the bookkeeping one: personal poker debts "falsely classified as 'legal-fee' expenses on the firm's books and records."
In Weiss v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (No. 24-6609, filed July 24), Judge Forrest, for a unanimous panel, reversed dismissal of Title VII and FEHA failure to accommodate claims brought by an employee fired after she declined to hand over medical history to support her religious vaccine exemption. Quoting Heller, the court held an employee need provide "only enough information about [her] religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict," because "[a]ny greater notice requirement would permit an employer to delve into the religious practices of an employee." Notice is now cleanly separated from sincerity, and an employer that cross examines an exemption request on doctrine is building the plaintiff's case.
CALIFORNIA & LA
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company (S287404, filed July 27), a unanimous court, Chief Justice Guerrero writing, reversed the Court of Appeal and held that "an insured may state a viable cause of action for declaratory relief regarding coverage and liability under an excess insurance policy even if all of the underlying insurance coverage has not yet been exhausted." The opinion also treats an excess insurer's implied covenant as running from inception rather than from the moment the layer attaches. Coverage counsel can plead the whole tower in one action instead of filing serially as each layer erodes.
In The Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Arteaga (B347829, Second District, Division Five, filed July 23, certified for publication), the court affirmed the denial of fees under Civil Code section 1717: "We agree with the trial court that any waiver of Trope's interpretation of Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717) was ineffective." The parties, it added, "did not have the authority to assume the role of the Legislature and redefine what it means to incur attorney fees." Trope waivers are common boilerplate in fee collection templates. If yours has one, it is unenforceable, and the engagement letter needs a look this week.
MICRA's damages cap does not limit an elder abuse verdict built on custodial neglect (4 minute read)
In Aud v. RRT Enterprises, LP (B341254, Second District, Division Seven, filed July 22, certified for partial publication), the court affirmed a roughly $1.8 million noneconomic damages award against a skilled nursing facility, applying Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 364, decided while the appeal was pending: "We conclude Jentz's causes of action were based on Country Villa Wilshire's acts and omissions as Jentz's custodian and caregiver, not as her health care provider." Custodian versus health care provider is now the highest value characterization fight in an elder abuse case, on both sides of it.
ORANGE COUNTY
Rivian sued the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Commissioner Rodney S. Scott on July 24, asking the Court of International Trade for a full refund with interest of duties it paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The complaint, as reported, explains why winning at the Supreme Court was not enough: importers that paid IEEPA tariffs "are not guaranteed a refund of amounts previously paid based on the Supreme Court's decision." Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided February 20, held IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Every client that paid one sits where Rivian sits, and the live question is the refund mechanism, not the merits.
AI & PRACTICE
On July 24, Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the Western District of Washington ordered that "Attorney Jocelyn Stewart is personally sanctioned in the amount of $3,000," payable to the Clerk of the Court, in LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (No. 3:24-cv-05808-TMC). The court found Stewart "submitted dozens of inaccurate factual and legal citations across at least five different filings," generated with ChatGPT and Claude, and did not stop at carelessness: the repeated failure to verify "rises to the level of bad faith." The money is the smallest part of it. A written bad faith finding is what a malpractice carrier reads at renewal.
In Lichfield v. Kubler (No. 25-4135, decided July 27, unpublished), a panel of Judges Tymkovich, Bacharach and Federico admonished appellate counsel whose opening brief cited authorities that do not exist and mischaracterized real ones. "Submission of a brief containing fabricated or hallucinated citations is a divergence from the standards expected of attorneys appearing before this court," the order says, and lawyers who use the technology "must be willing to also apply 'actual intelligence in its execution.'" No money issued, but the panel faulted counsel separately for not fixing the record on his own: "Any such error should be corrected explicitly and without prompting."