Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Attorney Amanda Wurah's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in September 2024. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Wurah had complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. Based on those findings and the applicable reinstatement rule, the court ordered that Wurah is reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Natalie Sirouhi Shahinian's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a September 2024 suspension. The court reviewed her affidavit and the Committee's response, found by clear and convincing evidence that she complied with the suspension order and applicable rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. As a result, the court ordered her reinstatement effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Norika Kunii’s motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in October 2021. The court reviewed Kunii’s affidavit, exhibits, and the Committee’s response and found by clear and convincing evidence that she satisfied the reinstatement requirements, complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered immediate reinstatement under the court’s disciplinary reinstatement rules.

The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate directing the appellate division to reverse its summary denial and order the superior court to reconsider petitioner Aimee Bobo’s request for misdemeanor diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95. Bobo had been charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter after running a red light and killing another driver. The trial court denied diversion solely because her negligent conduct caused a death. The appellate court held that denial based only on facts inherent in the offense improperly ignored the statute’s rehabilitative purposes and thus was an abuse of discretion.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for interlocutory appeal filed by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office in the matter styled In re Fulton County District Attorney's Office v. Donald John Trump et al. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and directed the Clerk of Superior Court to include a copy of this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. This is an administrative order certifying that the interlocutory appeal is permitted and outlining next procedural steps.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the Georgia Department of Early Care & Learning's application for discretionary appeal in the case against iCare Child Development Center, Inc. The order allows the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 21, 2026 order and directs the superior court clerk to include a copy of the appellate order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. This is a procedural grant of permission to pursue appellate review, not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for interlocutory appeal by Triduum Associates, LLC and others in their case against Holly Springs, Georgia. The court's order allows the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days and directs the superior court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. The decision is procedural: it merely authorizes taking an immediate appeal before final judgment and sets short timing and transmission instructions for the record.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted James Lampru's application for discretionary appeal on April 17, 2026. The court allowed the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and directed the Superior Court clerk to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order is procedural: it accepts review and sets steps for the appeal record and filing, without addressing the merits of the underlying case.

The Court of Appeal granted petitioner Michelle Paknad’s second writ of mandate ordering the Santa Clara Superior Court to vacate its prior order that accepted Intuitive Surgical’s redactions of investigator Andrea Smethurst’s reports and related investigative materials. The court held Intuitive had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection by placing the scope and adequacy of the investigations at issue in defending Paknad’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims. The court directed the trial court to conduct further in camera review and to disclose all factual findings and other information relevant to the investigations’ scope or adequacy, even if that material would otherwise qualify as core work product.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District conditionally granted mandamus relief to Heather Zermeno, who asked the court to vacate a temporary order appointing her and her husband joint managing conservators in their divorce case. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by appointing joint managing conservators despite credible evidence that the father committed family violence within two years of the divorce filing, which the Family Code prohibits for joint conservatorship. The appellate court ordered the trial judge to vacate the temporary joint-managing-conservator order and review conservatorship consistent with the statute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion under Court of Appeals Rule 40(b) to extend the time for filing an application for discretionary appeal. The superior court had denied the appellant's motion for new trial in a divorce case on March 17, 2026. The appellant's counsel requested additional time to file the discretionary-appeal application, and the Court of Appeals allowed the extension until May 18, 2026. The order only addresses the filing deadline extension and does not decide the merits of the underlying divorce or new-trial denial.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Elizabeth Marie Mills' application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Mills' sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement of non-opposition, concluded she was eligible to resign under the disciplinary rules, accepted her resignation, struck her name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered her immediately prohibited from practicing or holding out as an attorney in New York. Mills must also surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Neal Mitchel Frank's request to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons and accepted his resignation. The court reviewed Frank's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's statement that it did not oppose the application, found him eligible under the applicable disciplinary rules, and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. The court also permanently enjoined him from practicing law in New York and required surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Lawrence Martin Brody's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons and accepted his resignation. The court reviewed Brody's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's lack of opposition, found him eligible under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters, and struck his name from the roll of attorneys effective immediately. The court ordered that Brody cease practicing law in New York, forbade him from holding himself out as an attorney, and required surrender of any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted a petition by suspended attorney Zhe Sang to be reinstated to the practice of law. The court reviewed Sang's affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response and found by clear and convincing evidence that Sang complied with the suspension order and applicable rules, possesses the required character and fitness, and that reinstatement serves the public interest. The court ordered Sang reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted Wengang He's motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in May 2019. Reviewing filings and correspondence, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that He satisfied the reinstatement requirements in the court rules, complied with the suspension order, demonstrated the character and fitness needed to practice, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that He be reinstated effective immediately.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Anson Carlton Asaka's motion for reinstatement to the practice of law after his May 2019 suspension. The court reviewed affidavits and correspondence, found by clear and convincing evidence that Asaka satisfied the governing reinstatement rule, complied with the suspension order and court rules, possesses the necessary character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that Asaka be reinstated effective immediately.

The Court of Appeal granted the People’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to vacate its August 12, 2025 denial of an amended statement of disqualification (ASD) and to disqualify Judge Samah Shouka. The People sought disqualification because Judge Shouka had been a Riverside County deputy district attorney in the homicide unit and had participated in staffing and charging decisions relevant to a pending Racial Justice Act evidentiary hearing about whether the district attorney’s office disproportionately files death-penalty or special-circumstance charges. The appellate court concluded that a person aware of those facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s ability to be impartial, requiring disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).

The Ohio Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Adams County Board of Elections to hold a hearing within ten days on Christopher Hicks’s October 3, 2025 challenge to Prosecuting Attorney Aaron Haslam’s voter registration. The court ruled that Hicks, a qualified Ohio elector, has statutory standing under R.C. 3503.24(A). It held that res judicata and issue preclusion do not bar this action because no prior quasi-judicial hearing adjudicated the residency issue. The board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 3503.24(B) by denying the challenge without a hearing when its records were insufficient to resolve material factual disputes about residency.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted several amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure proposed by The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee. The amendments update cross-references and wording, remove outdated references to the prior e-filing system, align paper filing and service requirements with recent changes to the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, and revise certificate-of-service forms. The Court explained each change, incorporated consistency edits (for example replacing “pro se” with “unrepresented”), and set the effective date as July 1, 2026. No comments were received on the proposal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted Kiran Kimbrough's application for discretionary appeal from a decision involving the City of Atlanta. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 8, 2026 order and directed the Clerk of Superior Court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order formally accepts discretionary review and initiates the appellate filing deadline and record transmission procedures.

The Court of Appeals granted Ardalan Karbasyoun's application for discretionary appeal from a final judgment in favor of Foamworks Alpharetta, LLC. The court concluded the trial-court order disposed of the entire case and therefore was a final, appealable order under Georgia law. Because a right of direct appeal exists for such final judgments, the Court granted the application and instructed Karbasyoun to file a notice of appeal in the trial court within ten days. The trial-court clerk must include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus directing Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Kevin J. Kelley to follow this court’s prior mandate in JTC Solutions I. Relator JTC Solutions had argued the trial court failed to conduct the additional factfinding and explain the evidence supporting its ruling after this court reversed the trial court’s initial voiding of an arbitration clause. The appellate court found the January 5, 2026 entry granting arbitration ignored the express remand instructions to (1) inquire whether the arbitration clause is enforceable and applies to each claim and (2) state findings and evidence. The court denied the judge’s motion to dismiss and ordered compliance.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the City of Atlanta's application for an interlocutory appeal in the case styled City of Atlanta v. Ronald Frank Petty, Jr. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and directed the Clerk of Superior Court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order is procedural: it authorizes an immediate appeal before final judgment and sets a short deadline for filing the notice and for inclusion of the order in the appellate record.

The Court of Appeal granted Alonzo Devon Melson’s petition for habeas corpus and vacated his conviction for crimes arising from a 2017 gang-related shooting. The court found that two prosecution eyewitnesses gave trial testimony that was false about what they had told police after the shooting, and the prosecutor failed to correct those statements. Defense counsel at the retrial also failed to adequately prepare to impeach those witnesses. Under controlling precedent, the false testimony was material and the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the verdict.

The Court of Appeal granted The Merchant of Tennis’s petition for extraordinary writ and directed the trial court to modify its curative notice scheme regarding roughly 954 individual settlement agreements (ISAs) obtained by Merchant from putative class members. The trial court had found the ISAs voidable as procured by fraud or coercion and ordered a curative notice advising members they could rescind and join the class without having to immediately return settlement payments (though payments could be offset against any later recovery). The appellate majority concluded the trial court must follow California rescission statutes and preserved the judgment, adding that each side bear its own costs on appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for interlocutory appeal filed by Fowl Life Foods, LLC in the case against Matthew Gray. The court's order allows the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order (dated April 1, 2026) and directs the superior court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. The decision is procedural: the court accepted review of an otherwise non-final interlocutory matter and set the filing and record-transmission requirements to effectuate that review.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted Chick‑fil‑A, Inc.'s application for an interlocutory appeal in the case Chick‑fil‑A, Inc. v. Matthew Gray. The court ordered that the appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the April 1, 2026 order and directed the Superior Court clerk to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. This is an administrative order allowing the interlocutory appeal to proceed, not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an application for discretionary appeal filed by Wirth Forestry, LLC and others in a case against Heard County, Georgia. The court ordered that the appellants may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order and instructed the Clerk of the Superior Court to include this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The order simply grants permission to pursue an appeal and sets procedural steps for transmitting the record; it does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.