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. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2014

Hart v. Rick's NY Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses the court's jurisdiction over New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims in a class action lawsuit filed by exotic dancers against Rick's Cabaret and related entities. The plaintiffs initially brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NYLL. While the court considered exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims, plaintiffs argued for independent diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court concluded that, based on the current record, it possesses independent jurisdiction under CAFA for the NYLL claims. Furthermore, the court found that the defendants failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, including the 'local controversy,' 'home state,' or 'interest of justice' exceptions. The court left open the possibility for a renewed motion to remand the NYLL claims if later-developed facts challenge CAFA jurisdiction.

FLSA ClaimsNYLL ClaimsCAFA JurisdictionClass ActionSupplemental JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionEmployment LawExotic DancersMinimum WageWage & Hour
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gagasoules v. MBF Leasing LLC

This memorandum addresses a lawsuit commenced by Gus Gagasoules, Jan Niblett (Luster Cote, Inc.), and Rhonda Garner (Decor Specialties, Inc.) against MBF Leasing, LLC. The core issue revolves around the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, which was premised on federal causes of action and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, primarily because the Plaintiffs never moved to certify the class and their invocation of CAFA jurisdiction was deemed frivolous given the procedural history. Consequently, the case was dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, the Court considered multiple motions for sanctions from both parties. While most sanction motions against the Plaintiffs and their counsel were denied, the Defendant's motion for sanctions against Jan Niblett and Luster Cote, Inc. was granted due to discovery abuses, specifically their failure to appear for scheduled depositions.

Subject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)SanctionsDiscovery AbusesRule 11 SanctionsRule 37 Sanctions28 U.S.C. § 1927Court Inherent PowerBreach of ContractVoluntary Dismissal
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorrentino v. ASN Roosevelt Center, LLC

This case concerns a putative class action, Sorrentino, initiated by former tenants of the Archstone Westbury apartment complex. The tenants alleged issues stemming from water intrusion and mold, leading to claims including medical monitoring and violations of New York General Business Law § 349. Initially filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, the action was removed to federal court by the defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Presiding District Judge Spatt evaluated federal jurisdiction, confirming the amount in controversy was met. However, the court ultimately granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case and two related actions, Ventimiglia and In re Archstone Westbury Tenant Litigation, back to the New York State Supreme Court, County of Nassau, citing the discretionary exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFAClass ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionLocal Controversy ExceptionHome State ExceptionDiscretionary ExceptionMold Exposure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ava Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Plaintiffs, medical providers, filed a class action in state court against several insurers, including State Farm, alleging fraudulent non-payment of No-Fault medical reimbursement claims under New York law. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the five million dollar amount in controversy requirement was not met, or alternatively, that the local controversy exception to CAFA applied. The court found that State Farm successfully demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeded forty million dollars through denied claims. The court also determined that plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a 'significant' local defendant, thus rendering the local controversy exception inapplicable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was denied.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFASubject Matter JurisdictionFederal RemovalRemand MotionAmount in ControversyLocal Controversy ExceptionNew York No-Fault Insurance LawMedical ReimbursementInsurance Fraud
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucker v. Bayside Cemetery

Plaintiffs, including John Lucker, Elizabeth Lucker, Nancy Rousseau, Lynn Cohen, and Fran Goldstein, filed three class actions against Bayside Cemetery and Congregation Shaare Zedek. They allege the defendants failed to honor perpetual care contracts for burial plots, leading to violations of New York law, including false advertising, deceptive practices, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the actions. The Court reviewed its jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). It found that two of the actions (Cohen and Goldstein) lacked minimal diversity. For the Lucker action, the Court applied the discretionary exception to CAFA, concluding that the case, involving New York defendants, contracts, and laws, with a majority of class members (based on those who signed contracts) likely residing in New York, lacked national implications. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed all three actions.

Class Action Fairness ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionCAFA Mandatory ExceptionCAFA Discretionary ExceptionCemetery Maintenance ContractsPerpetual Care ContractsBreach of ContractFalse AdvertisingDeceptive Practices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurovskaya v. Project O.H.R., Inc.

The plaintiffs, Natalia Kurovskaya and Ruslan Domnic, sued Project O.H.R., Inc. in New York State Supreme Court for alleged violations of New York Labor Law, including unpaid wages and overtime. Project O.H.R. removed the case to the Southern District of New York under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, specifically the local controversy and home state exceptions, applied. The court agreed, inferring that two-thirds or more of the plaintiff class members and the primary defendant were citizens of New York State. Additionally, the court found the discretionary 'interests of justice' exception applicable, concluding that the case involved New York state law and parties. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion, remanding the action to the New York State Supreme Court.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFA ExceptionsRemandFederal JurisdictionState CourtNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertimeHome State ExceptionLocal Controversy Exception
References
6
Case No. No. Civ. 8405(CM)(JCF)
Regular Panel Decision

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance

Plaintiffs Jonathan Berck and Martin Fleisher sued Phoenix Life Insurance Company for breach of contract regarding "premium-adjustable, universal life" (PAUL) insurance policies. Berck, a trustee, alleged two breaches by Phoenix: an improper 2010 cost of insurance (COI) rate increase and a concurrent interest rate decrease. Berck claimed the COI increase, based on impermissible factors and non-uniform application, forced him to invest an additional $700,000 to avoid higher charges, incurring a $35,000 sales fee. Phoenix moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Berck lacked standing and that Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction was lost post-class decertification, and for partial summary judgment on anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest. The court denied both motions, affirming Berck's standing due to economic harm and maintaining CAFA jurisdiction based on initial class allegations. The court also denied summary judgment regarding anticipatory repudiation and prejudgment interest as premature, allowing the case to proceed.

Breach of contractInsurance policiesUniversal life insuranceCost of insurance ratesInterest rate decreaseSubject matter jurisdictionStandingClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Motion to dismissMotion for partial summary judgment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Plaintiffs Brian Cutrone and Jessica Cervone filed a putative class action against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), alleging violations of New York General Business Law and breaches of implied warranties related to mortgage recording taxes. The core dispute stemmed from the inapplicability of certain tax-saving refinancing agreements (CEMAs) for E-Sign mortgages following a New York court ruling, which allegedly forced plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals to pay a second mortgage tax. MERS removed the case to federal court, citing both federal question and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) diversity jurisdiction. The District Court, however, found no valid federal question jurisdiction as plaintiffs' claims were state-law based, with any federal issue being a mere defense, and ruled that MERS's removal under CAFA was untimely, as the company had sufficient information from the initial complaint to ascertain removability. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, returning the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Class ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionCAFAFederal QuestionMortgage Electronic Registration SystemsE-Sign MortgageNew York General Business LawMortgage Recording Tax
References
20
Case No. 08CV1010 (ADS)(ETB), 08CV1751 (ADS)(ETB)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2008

Ventimiglia v. TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH

The plaintiffs, former tenants of a luxury apartment complex in Westbury, NY, initiated putative class actions against their landlord, Archstone Westbury, after being forced to vacate due to water intrusion and mold issues. These cases were removed to federal court by the defendant under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court addressed motions to remand, focusing on whether federal jurisdiction, specifically minimal diversity and the amount in controversy, was properly established. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant failed to prove minimal diversity, finding that Archstone Westbury's principal place of business was in New York, the same state as the plaintiffs. Consequently, the federal court lacked jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the actions to the New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was granted.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFAFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRemand OrderPrincipal Place of BusinessNew York LawClass Action LitigationTenant DisputesMold Remediation
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 14 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