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

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

The plaintiff, Kimberley Larsen, filed a class action lawsuit against JBC Legal Group, P.C., and other defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Larsen alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter attempting to collect debts from New York consumers. The plaintiff defined two classes, Class A and Class B, based on different alleged FDCPA violations. Larsen moved for permission to move simultaneously for summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, or alternatively, for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, primarily to shift the cost of notice to the defendants. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for simultaneous summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, citing Supreme Court precedent that typically requires the plaintiff to bear the cost of notice. The court also indicated that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is unlikely to be granted in FDCPA cases in the Second Circuit.

FDCPAClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(b)(2)Cost of NoticeFair Debt CollectionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDebt Collection Practices
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Brigandi v. Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 11 Civ. 7673
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2012

In re Smart Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

The District Court considered a motion for class certification in a securities class action. The Lead Plaintiff, City of Miami General Employees’ and Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust, sought certification against SMART Technologies, Inc. and several individual and corporate defendants. The Court addressed several exclusions to the proposed class, specifically excluding non-U.S. purchasers and secondary market purchasers for Section 12(a)(2) claims based on the Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. doctrine. Additionally, the Court excluded investors who purchased after a November 9, 2010 corrective disclosure and "in-and-out" traders due to issues of typicality and negative loss causation. The motion for class certification was ultimately granted, with a precisely defined class of U.S. purchasers who acquired SMART common stock prior to November 10, 2010, traceable to the Offering Materials, and a further limitation for Section 12(a)(2) claims to IPO purchasers.

Securities Act of 1933Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23Morrison DoctrineExtraterritorialitySection 11 ClaimsSection 12(a)(2) ClaimsInitial Public Offering (IPO)Secondary Market
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic of the Philippines v. Abaya

The Republic of the Philippines filed a lawsuit against Gavino Abaya, Juan Abaya, Susan Abaya, Diane Dunne, and Barbara Stone, alleging state-law claims including money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion. These claims stem from the distribution of proceeds from the sale of Claude Monet's "Le Bassin aux Nymphease," a painting allegedly stolen from the Republic by Imelda Marcos's social secretary, Vilma Bautista, and subsequently sold by the defendants. Jose Duran, representing a class of judgment creditors of Imelda Marcos and her family, sought to intervene in the case, asserting a claim to the painting's sale proceeds based on a judgment against Imelda Marcos. The court granted Class Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), finding their motion timely, their interest direct and legally protectable, their ability to protect that interest potentially impaired without intervention, and their interests not adequately represented by the existing parties due to conflicting claims over the assets.

Intervention of RightFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Stolen ArtworkMonet PaintingJudgment CreditorsImelda Marcos EstateAsset RecoveryUnjust EnrichmentConversion ClaimsEquitable Relief
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1995

Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 31, 1995, concerning a class action brought by employees seeking prevailing wages for asbestos removal work. The court modified a previous order, redefining the class to specifically include all past and present employees of Azevedo & Boyle Contracting, Inc. and its alleged successor, Boyle Environmental Services Inc. It also stayed all claims against J. Greaney Construction Corp. due to bankruptcy, and against Reliance Insurance Company of New York as Greaney's surety. Furthermore, the court remanded claims made under Labor Law § 220 to the IAS Court for further development and determination, while affirming common-law breach of contract claims.

Wage disputeClass actionPrevailing wageAsbestos removalLabor Law § 220Class certificationBankruptcy stayBreach of contractNew York CountySupreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioner Universal Waste, Inc. initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation's denial of its application to reclassify a 21-acre parcel in Utica, Oneida County, from a Class 2 to a Class 3 inactive hazardous waste disposal site, or to have it removed from the registry entirely. The site, contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a former scrap metal operation, had been designated a Class 2 site by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) since 1985 due to a significant environmental threat, triggering a complex legal and administrative history. Despite an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation for reclassification to Class 3 following a hearing, the Commissioner ultimately denied the request in October 2011, concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate the site no longer posed a significant threat to the environment. The Commissioner's decision highlighted the presence of massive quantities of PCBs, the absence of effective cleanup measures, and evidence of contamination exceeding state standards both on-site and migrating to the adjacent Mohawk River and wetlands. The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition and finding no jurisdictional overreach, no substantial prejudice from a five-year delay in the decision, and that the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Environmental LawHazardous WastePCB ContaminationSite ReclassificationAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingEnvironmental Conservation Law (ECL)Inactive Hazardous Waste Site RegistryAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 2,776 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