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

Ash v. Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc.

Vista Lanes Limited sued Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc. in federal court in New York for a refund and damages related to a failed contract for bowling pinsetters. Lynch had previously filed a lawsuit against Vista and Lyons Bowling Center, Inc. in New Jersey state court concerning the same underlying transaction. Lynch subsequently filed a motion in the federal court to stay the proceedings, citing convenience, the risk of piecemeal litigation, and the earlier start of the New Jersey case. The federal court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, analyzed the motion using the Colorado River abstention doctrine factors. Despite some factors leaning slightly in Lynch's favor, the court concluded that Lynch had not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" required to warrant abstention or a stay of the federal action, especially considering Vista's willingness to arbitrate its federal claim. Consequently, Lynch's motion to stay the proceedings was denied.

Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel LitigationStay of ProceedingsFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPiecemeal LitigationContract DisputeBowling PinsettersInter-jurisdictional Conflict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. United States Automobile Ass'n

Plaintiff William Lynch initiated an action against the United States Automobile Association (USAA) for unpaid overtime wages, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Lynch sought to amend his complaint to include other similarly situated employees who had opted into the collective action and to introduce California state-law claims for nine California-based plaintiffs. USAA opposed the amendment, primarily arguing that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims due to their purported novelty, complexity, potential to predominate over federal claims, or risk of jury confusion. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox evaluated USAA's objections under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and determined that the California state-law claims were not novel or complex, would not substantially predominate, and that jury confusion did not constitute an exceptional circumstance compelling a denial of jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Lynch's motion for leave to amend the complaint.

FLSAOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor LawRule 15(a)Supplemental JurisdictionMotion to Amend ComplaintCollective ActionClass Certification
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Sumi Ohnuma

This case involves Merrill Lynch seeking to permanently stay arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The core issue is determining when a limited partnership investment is "acquired" for the purpose of a six-year arbitration eligibility period under NASD Code section 15. Merrill Lynch argued the "trade date" controlled, while respondents contended it was the "settlement date," the "effective date" of the partnership, or a later date of alleged misrepresentation. The court ultimately held that the "trade date," when respondents irrevocably committed to purchase, initiated the six-year period, thus barring their arbitration claims as they were filed beyond this timeframe. The court also rejected the respondents' arguments based on collateral, equitable, and judicial estoppel.

Arbitration EligibilityNASD Code Section 15Statute of LimitationsTrade DateSettlement DateLimited Partnership InvestmentsSecurities ArbitrationFraudulent ConcealmentCollateral EstoppelEquitable Estoppel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. v. Burr

Merrill Lynch Realty Carll Burr, Inc. (MLRCB) and Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. (MLRA) sued Carll S. Burr III and other defendants over the use of the 'Burr' name in real estate. The dispute originated from a 1980 acquisition agreement and a subsequent employment contract with restrictive covenants. A previous settlement in 1984 also restricted Carll S. Burr III's use of the name. After MLRCB ceased using the 'Carll Burr' name, Carll S. Burr III established 'Carll Burr Realty'. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the 1984 stipulation, damages, and a permanent injunction. The appellate court found that the lower court improvidently granted a preliminary injunction, citing sharply disputed facts regarding an alleged oral agreement to modify the contract and the plaintiffs' potential abandonment of the 'Burr' name. Additionally, the plaintiffs' sale of their real estate business undermined claims of irreparable injury, making preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.

Preliminary InjunctionRestrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseOral ModificationContract DisputeTrade NameBusiness SaleIrreparable HarmBalancing of EquitiesDisputed Facts
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2016

Bruzzese v. Lynch

This case involves Adam Bruzzese, a former Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), who sued Attorney General Loretta Lynch for alleged discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Bruzzese claimed his reassignment from Special Agent to Technical Surveillance Specialist was due to a perceived mental health condition. A Fitness-for-Duty evaluation concluded he had personality characteristics that increased safety risks, leading to the restriction of his arming authority and permanent reassignment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that Bruzzese was not a 'qualified individual' or an 'individual with a disability' under the Act. The decision highlighted that his personality traits, not a protected mental disability, rendered him unsuitable for his law enforcement role.

Rehabilitation ActDisability DiscriminationSpecial AgentFirearms AuthorityFitness-for-Duty EvaluationPersonality CharacteristicsPerceived DisabilitySummary JudgmentLaw EnforcementEmployment Reassignment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin-Trigona v. D'Amato & Lynch

Plaintiff Martin-Trigona filed a suit against attorneys D’Amato & Lynch and Richard Belford under RICO statutes, the Fifth Amendment, and state law, alleging misconduct for providing limited legal assistance to pro se defendants in a state court action. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions did not constitute fraud or a pattern of racketeering. The court found that the limited assistance provided by the attorneys to the pro se litigants was proper and did not violate mail fraud, wire fraud, or the Hobbs Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendants' actions were private and did not involve governmental action, thus not violating the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal and pendent state law claims.

RICOSummary JudgmentPro Se AssistanceMail FraudWire FraudHobbs ActFifth AmendmentDue ProcessPendent ClaimsLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Salwen Paper Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The plaintiff, Salwen Paper Co., Profit Sharing Retirement Trust, sued defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent performance. A prior federal action by the plaintiff was dismissed due to insufficient federal securities law claims, and the federal court explicitly declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the current state action based on res judicata, which Special Term granted. The appellate court reversed, holding that res judicata does not apply because the federal court's dismissal did not address the merits of the common-law claims. Therefore, the common-law claims can proceed in state court.

Res JudicataPendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawCommon Law ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligencePrior DismissalAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DiscretionState Court Action
References
17
Case No. 16-CV-74 (JFB), 16-CV-415 (JFB), 16-CV-1475 (JFB), 16-CV-1476 (JFB)
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Vaccaro

This is a consolidated federal appeal from four orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court concerning a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding initiated by Maura E. Lynch. The core dispute involves the sale of a property in Sag Harbor, New York, previously subject to a divorce action between Lynch and Stephen S. Vaccaro. Appellant Lynch sought to reverse an order related to the receiver's possession of the property, while appellant Patricia M. Frank challenged auction and sale orders for the property. The District Court dismissed all appeals, finding them statutorily moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) because the sales were consummated, no stays were obtained, and the purchasers acted in good faith.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11Consolidated AppealsStatutory MootnessGood Faith PurchaserSale of AssetsReal PropertyEastern District of New YorkFederal AppealsBankruptcy Code Section 363(m)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Lynch

Plaintiff James P. Boyle filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Merrill Lynch, alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and constructive discharge based on his depression, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL). Merrill Lynch sought summary judgment. The court determined that Boyle failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his failure-to-accommodate claim and that several other claims were time-barred. Ultimately, the court concluded that Boyle did not establish a prima facie case for any of his remaining claims, including disability discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, or retaliation, as he failed to demonstrate a materially adverse employment action or a sufficiently hostile environment. Therefore, the court granted Merrill Lynch's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

DiscriminationDisability AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York State Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMental Disability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woori Bank v. Lynch

Plaintiff Woori Bank filed a complaint against Merrill Lynch and several other entities, asserting common law claims for fraud, rescission, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment stemming from a $143 million investment in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Merrill Lynch sought to dismiss the action, contending that Woori's claims were time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The court determined that New York's borrowing statute applied, leading to the use of the shorter Korean three-year statute of limitations, as Woori is a resident of and suffered economic injury in Korea. The court found that Woori was on notice and had the practical ability to file its claim prior to May 18, 2009, citing extensive public information, investigations, and other lawsuits. Consequently, Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss was granted, and Woori's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

Financial fraudCDO investmentsStatute of limitationsKorean lawNew York lawMotion to dismissInquiry noticeEconomic injuryFinancial crisisMerrill Lynch
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 88 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