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

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. 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

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. 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

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
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

Cooley v. United States

On December 8, 1981, six coal miners died in a methane gas explosion at the Grundy Mining Company in Whitwell, Tennessee. Their estates, represented by their widows and administratrix, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Plaintiffs claimed MSHA employees were negligent in approving unsafe ventilation plans, failing to conduct adequate inspections, and failing to enforce safety standards, leading to the miners' deaths. The United States moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the FTCA's discretionary function exception. The court analyzed MSHA's statutory and regulatory authority, concluding that MSHA inspectors exercised significant discretion in their duties, and their actions were grounded in governmental policy. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court found that the discretionary function exception applied, barring the plaintiffs' claims. Consequently, the complaints were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mine SafetyMethane Gas ExplosionFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunityFederal Mine Safety and Health ActMSHAVentilation PlansSafety ViolationsWrongful Death
References
35
Case No. 01S01-9708-BC-00173
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1998

Billy R. Phillips v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee

This case addresses whether the State of Tennessee may be held liable for discretionary costs in a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff Billy R. Phillips sustained a work-related injury and sought to recover discretionary costs, including a treating physician's fee, court reporter costs, and a vocational disability expert's fee. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled that the State is only liable for costs expressly permitted by statute, specifically allowing the treating physician's fee under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-226(c)(1) as an exception to the general prohibition against taxing discretionary costs against the State found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(d). The Court affirmed the claims commission's judgment denying other discretionary costs, while upholding the modified disability award of thirty-seven percent to the body as a whole.

Discretionary CostsState LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActClaims Commission StatuteStatutory InterpretationCourt CostsTreating Physician FeesVocational Disability ExpertRule 54.04Tennessee Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tremblay v. United States

Plaintiff Thomas A. Tremblay sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained during pilot training, alleging FAA inspector Rick Taylor negligently instructed him to jump from an airplane exit. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Court granted the motion, finding that FAA decisions regarding training programs, supervision, and regulation were discretionary and immune from judicial review. It also determined that Taylor's instruction fell within this protected discretion. Thus, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Aviation AdministrationAirline TrainingPilot SafetyGovernment NegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,447 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