Case Summary:

Gemini said

In the case of Legacy Re, Ltd. v. 401 Properties Limited Partnership (Docket No. 1-24-1341), which was argued before the Illinois Appellate Court, First District on February 10, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:

The litigation originates from a complex commercial foreclosure action involving a $15 million commercial property located at 401 S. LaSalle St. in Chicago.

The dispute involves two separate mortgage notes issued in 2009: a $7.9 million note held by Bridgeview Bank Group (BBG) and a $3.2 million subordinate note originally held by Fortuna Stream LP.

The petitioners, Legacy Re, Ltd. and Rock Solid Gelt Limited, are partial assignees of the Fortuna note and initiated foreclosure proceedings after the borrower, 401 Properties Limited Partnership, defaulted on the debt.

A central factual issue in the case is the "merger doctrine," which the trial court applied after finding that the same individuals controlled both the debtor partnership and the entity that later acquired the senior BBG mortgage.

The trial court previously ruled that because the same principals (Leon Greenblatt, Andrew Jahelka, and Richard Nichols) sat on both sides of the transaction as creditor and debtor, the senior mortgage was effectively extinguished.

The current appeal, docketed as 1-24-1341, follows a long procedural history involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor that were dismissed for being filed in "bad faith" to delay the foreclosure.

The factual record on appeal includes challenges to the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust for the benefit of Rock Solid Gelt Limited over its share of the mortgage proceeds.

During the oral arguments on February 10, 2026, the appellate panel examined whether the trial court erred in its factual finding that a "double recovery" would occur if the mortgage debts were not cancelled through the merger doctrine.

Case Summary:

In the case of Vargison v. Paula's Choice, LLC (Docket No. 25-2452), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 9, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:

The case is a putative class action brought by consumers alleging that the skincare company, Paula's Choice, falsely advertised its products as "cruelty-free" and "never tested on animals."

The plaintiffs contend that these representations were deceptive because the company sold its products in mainland China, where animal testing was legally mandated for foreign cosmetics during the class period.

A significant factual development occurred when Paula's Choice updated its website's Terms of Use in March 2023 to include a mandatory arbitration clause and a class action waiver.

The company moved to compel arbitration for several named plaintiffs, arguing that any purchases made after the updated terms were posted constituted assent to the arbitration agreement.

The district court granted the motion for certain plaintiffs who made purchases after the motion to compel was filed, finding they had received sufficient notice through the litigation itself.

The primary issue on appeal involves Plaintiff Samantha Simmons, for whom the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that her specific purchase timeline did not establish clear assent to the new terms.

The appellate court is reviewing whether the website's design provided "reasonably conspicuous notice" of the arbitration clause to prevent consumers from being "clawed back" into individual arbitration for claims that accrued before the terms were updated.

During the oral arguments on February 9, 2026, the panel in Seattle focused on the sufficiency of the website's hyperlink placement and whether the company's "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreements met the Ninth Circuit's standards for enforceability.

Case Summary:

The case involves a criminal appeal by the defendant, Isaac Tekola, following a conviction and sentencing in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The defendant was charged and subsequently convicted for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, a violation of federal narcotics laws.

In September 2024, the district court imposed a sentence of 105 months of imprisonment (approximately 8.75 years) based on the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's prior criminal history.

The factual basis for the underlying conviction centered on a law enforcement operation that resulted in the seizure of a significant quantity of narcotics attributed to the defendant.

The current appeal, heard in Pasadena, California, primarily challenges the reasonableness and legality of the 105-month sentence imposed by the trial judge.

A key point of contention in the appellate record is whether the district court correctly calculated the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, specifically regarding enhancements for the defendant's role in the offense or the specific types of controlled substances found.

The defense argues that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the defendant’s personal history and characteristics, which they claim warranted a downward variance.

During the oral arguments on February 9, 2026, the panel examined whether the district court abused its discretion by prioritizing the punitive aspects of the sentence over the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.

Case Summary:

In SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD (Docket No. 25-5367), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 6, 2026, the case involves a high-profile challenge to the Department of Defense's designation of the world's largest drone manufacturer as a "Chinese military company."

The factual record centers on the Pentagon's decision to place DJI on the "Section 1260H List," a designation that identifies entities allegedly supporting the Chinese military and blocks them from securing federal contracts. In the underlying proceedings, the district court issued a split factual finding, rejecting the DOD's claims that DJI was owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party but ultimately upholding the "military company" label based on DJI's status as a "National Enterprise Technology Center" in China and the "substantial dual-use applications" of its drone technology in modern warfare. On appeal, the primary factual dispute is whether these general industrial designations and the potential for third-party military misuse constitute sufficient evidence of a "military-civil fusion" connection under the Administrative Procedure Act, or if the DOD's listing was an arbitrary and capricious decision that ignored DJI's internal policies prohibiting combat use.

Case Summary:

In Kelvin Nolen v. Steven Ford (Docket No. 25-1370), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 5, 2026, the case pertains to a civil rights action involving allegations of police misconduct and the scope of qualified immunity.

The factual record centers on a confrontation between Kelvin Nolen and Steven Ford, an officer acting in an official capacity, during which Nolen alleges his constitutional rights were violated through the use of excessive force or an unlawful seizure. In the proceedings at the district court level, the court examined whether Officer Ford’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances or if they violated "clearly established" law, ultimately granting a ruling that prompted Nolen’s appeal. Before the Sixth Circuit, the primary factual dispute involves the specific sequence of events during the encounter and whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to overcome the officer's defense of qualified immunity and allow the case to proceed to a jury trial.

Case Summary:

In Ethan Ennes v. Presque Isle County MI (Docket No. 25-1389), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim brought by a student with physical and cognitive disabilities against a county sheriff’s deputy and the county itself.

The factual record stems from a 2021 incident in a special education classroom where the student, then eighteen years old, experienced a violent outburst that resulted in a physical confrontation with a school safety officer. During the struggle, the officer subdued and handcuffed the student, an action the plaintiff later alleged constituted excessive force and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the use of force was objectively reasonable given the student's aggressive behavior and the risk of injury to others in the classroom. On appeal, the central factual dispute is whether the degree of force used was proportional to the threat posed by a student with known cognitive impairments and whether the county can be held liable for a failure to properly train officers for such interactions

Case Summary:

In Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC (Docket No. 24-2178), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the case involves a complex patent dispute following a rare split decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The factual record centers on several patents held by Wildseed Mobile relating to mobile advertising and user interface technologies, which Wildseed claimed were infringed by Google’s YouTube platform and Android advertising services. In the underlying administrative proceedings, Google successfully challenged the validity of these patents, leading the PTAB to issue a final written decision that invalidated key claims as obvious over prior art. However, the PTAB’s decision was notably non-unanimous, featuring a rare dissent from an administrative patent judge who argued that certain unique aspects of Wildseed’s "time-shifted" advertising innovations were not properly accounted for in the majority’s obviousness analysis. On appeal, the primary factual and legal dispute focuses on whether the PTAB correctly applied the standards for novelty and non-obviousness and whether the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Case Summary:

In Alignment Healthcare Inc. v. HHS (Docket No. 25-5239), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 2, 2026, Alignment Healthcare appealed a lower court ruling regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) "Star Ratings" program. The factual record focuses on CMS's use of the Tukey Outlier Rule to set quality thresholds and allegations that the agency ignored language barriers and survey reliability issues for Spanish-speaking enrollees. While the district court ordered a recalculation for one specific Arizona plan due to misprocessed member appeals, it upheld the broader statistical methodology, a finding that Alignment is now challenging at the appellate level to secure potentially billions in withheld bonus payments.

In Exafer Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation (Docket No. 24-2296), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 4, 2026, the dispute involves networking technology used in Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform. The case reached the Federal Circuit after a district court in the Western District of Texas excluded Exafer’s damages expert for using unaccused products as a royalty base and subsequently granted summary judgment of "no damages" for Microsoft. The central factual issue on appeal is whether technical evidence of "saved CPU cycles" can independently support a reasonable royalty award in the absence of a surviving expert damages model.