CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. Docket Entries No. 140, 141
Regular Panel Decision

In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses the defendants' second motion to dismiss a securities-fraud amended complaint. The case involves a highly publicized oil spill on the California coast by Plains All American Pipeline, an oil and gas pipeline owner and operator. Plaintiffs, a putative class of stockholders, allege that Plains and its officers made misrepresentations about the spill's extent and the company's environmental compliance programs, causing a drop in stock price. The court previously dismissed claims without prejudice, allowing for amendment. Now, evaluating the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, the court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege specific, actionable misrepresentations and, more critically, failed to establish a strong inference of scienter for the individual defendants for any remaining potentially actionable statements. Consequently, all claims are dismissed with prejudice, deeming further amendment futile.

Securities FraudOil SpillPipeline IntegrityEnvironmental ComplianceClass ActionMotions to DismissScienterRule 9(b)PSLRAStock Price
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amaya v. Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc.

Plaintiff Luis A. Amaya filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against Defendants Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. and Charles Herman, alleging unpaid overtime and denied break periods. Amaya moved to amend his complaint to add Canoe the River, Inc. as an additional defendant, having discovered through interrogatories that Canoe also employed him and shared common ownership and location with Roadhouse. Defendants opposed the motion, citing untimeliness, prejudice, and futility. The court found the motion timely, noting Amaya's diligent efforts to confirm Canoe's employer status and his adherence to court-extended deadlines. Furthermore, the court determined that the proposed amendment would not cause undue prejudice or futility, dismissing arguments about additional discovery as insufficient to deny the motion and deeming the factual dispute over employer identity inappropriate for this stage. Consequently, the motion to amend the complaint to include Canoe the River, Inc. as a defendant was granted.

FLSANYLLMotion to AmendPleading AmendmentJoinderUndue DelayPrejudiceFutilityRule 15(a)Rule 21
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2000

Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.

Michael J. Curran, a deliveryman, was injured in a truck accident and, along with his wife, sued Auto Lab Service Center, Inc., alleging faulty repairs. They attempted to amend their complaint to add D&M Auto Parts Corp., Curran's employer, as a direct defendant, claiming D&M destroyed the damaged truck and thereby impaired their ability to recover from Auto Lab. D&M, a third-party defendant, cross-moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing Curran's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court modified the order: the plaintiffs' motion to amend was properly denied as D&M had no duty to preserve the truck, but D&M's cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint should have been granted because Curran did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined by statute.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAmended ComplaintSpoliation of EvidenceEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewDuty to Preserve Evidence
References
10
Case No. 09-11893
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Estate of Mendelow (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

This memorandum decision addresses a motion by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), seeking leave to amend a complaint against Steven B. Mendelow and other defendants to recover fraudulent transfers. The Trustee's original complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Mendelow knew or should have known about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The court outlines the history of the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, Mendelow's role as a sophisticated investor and operator of feeder funds like Telfran, and how he allegedly received guaranteed returns and fictitious profits (Extra P&L) from BLMIS. The decision discusses the impact of evolving pleading standards and the applicability of the Section 546(e) safe harbor on the Trustee's claims. Despite objections from the defendants regarding undue delay and prejudice due to the deaths of key witnesses (Frank DiPascali and Steven B. Mendelow), the court grants the motion to amend, finding that the Trustee's proposed amendment plausibly alleges Mendelow's actual knowledge of the fraud and that this knowledge can be imputed to the other defendants through agency relationships. However, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks to recover transfers predating January 1, 2001, when BLMIS was formed as a limited liability company. Claims against subsequent transferees are dismissed without prejudice.

SIPA liquidationPonzi schemefraudulent transfersmotion to amend complaintactual knowledgeagency relationshipfeeder fundsfictitious profitssecurities law violationsbankruptcy trustee
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILGWU National Retirement Fund v. B.B. Liquidating Corp.

The ILGWU National Retirement Fund moved to amend its complaint and for summary judgment, while B.B. Liquidating Corp. cross-moved for summary judgment. The Fund alleges BBLC, operating as Blassport, contributed to the Fund, then sold assets, incurring withdrawal liability when the purchaser ceased contributions. BBLC denies ever contributing to the Fund and thus denies liability. The court granted the motion to amend the complaint, allowing the Fund to correct the defendant's name and add Norman Zeiler as a defendant. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied due to a material factual dispute regarding whether Blassport-BBLC ever made contributions to the Fund, which is pivotal to determining BBLC's obligation to seek arbitration.

Pension benefitsMultiemployer planERISAMPPAAWithdrawal liabilityArbitrationSummary judgmentAmended complaintCorporate lawShareholder liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angelora v. Kent Stores, Inc.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint against Kent Stores, Inc. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the second cause of action in the plaintiff's amended complaint against Louis Marcus. The basis for these dismissals was the plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The decision included an award of ten dollars in costs and disbursements.

Amended ComplaintDismissalSufficiency of FactsCause of ActionAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsConcurring JusticesCivil Procedure
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,002 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational