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

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

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
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

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

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

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MG Building Materials, Ltd. v. Paychex, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs MG Building Materials, Ltd. and Excellence Mortgage, Ltd. against Paychex, Inc., initially filed in Texas state court for breach of contract and other claims. The action, originally based on diversity jurisdiction, was removed by Paychex to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) after plaintiffs filed a third amended petition adding class claims. This amendment transformed the case significantly, increasing the scope to thousands of putative class members and billions in damages, alleging a nationwide fraudulent scheme by Paychex. Plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court, arguing Paychex's removal was untimely. The court, however, denied the motion to remand, applying the "revival exception" to the thirty-day removal rule, concluding that the third amended petition fundamentally altered the nature of the lawsuit, thereby creating a new opportunity for removal.

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRevival ExceptionMotion to RemandAmended PleadingFraud ClaimsBreach of ContractArbitration ClauseFederal Procedure
References
53
Case No. 2015-05-0341
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2016

Dugger, Paula v. Home Health Care of Middle TN

This expedited hearing addresses Paula Dugger's request for medical and temporary disability benefits after a February 21, 2015, automobile accident. Ms. Dugger, a Licensed Practical Nurse for Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, was driving to a patient's home when the accident occurred. The central legal issue is whether her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Court considered the "coming and going rule" and its exceptions, including the special errand exception and the traveling employee exception. The Court found that Ms. Dugger's accident did not fall under any established exceptions and denied her request for benefits.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentComing and Going RuleExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsScope of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentTravel TimeEmployee Vehicle Requirement
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,133 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