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

Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class, represented by M.C. Brister, Jr., comprises employees of Texas Steel Company who received workers' compensation benefits but were allegedly denied disability benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan issued by Life Insurance Company of the Southwest. The claims involved breach of contract and misrepresentation. Appellants contended that the class did not meet the requirements for certification under TEX.R.CIV.P. 42(b) and that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding a prior federal class action settlement. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, finding that common issues, primarily the interpretation of the Employee Benefit Plan and alleged statutory violations, predominated over individual issues, making a class action superior. While acknowledging the error in excluding evidence of the federal lawsuit, the court determined it was not a reversible error as it did not contribute to an improper judgment.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsBreach of ContractMisrepresentationEmployee Benefit PlanTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade PracticesRule 42
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duchene v. Michael L. Cetta, Inc.

Plaintiffs, current and former waiters at Sparks Steak House, initiated litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, alleging the unlawful diversion of their tips. Following a previous order for the FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action, the plaintiffs moved for class action certification for all waiters employed by Sparks from June 14, 2000, onwards. The defendant opposed this, challenging supplemental jurisdiction and class certification requirements. However, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and found that the class met all necessary criteria, including numerosity and superiority. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawTip DiversionWage and Hour ClaimsCollective ActionSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementSuperiority Requirement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zachery v. Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc.

African-American hourly field workers sued Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. (TEPI) for racial discrimination in promotions, wages, and training, citing violations of Title VII and Section 1981. The plaintiffs sought class certification for all African-American PG-98 hourly field workers employed by TEPI since March 23, 1991, but dropped claims for compensatory and punitive damages to enable the class action under Rule 23(b)(2). The court denied the motion, finding a lack of commonality and typicality due to TEPI's decentralized and subjective evaluation and promotion systems across numerous geographically dispersed business units. A primary concern for the court was the potential conflict of interest arising from the named plaintiffs' waiver of monetary damages, which could prejudice the absent class members' rights to seek such damages. The court also indicated that class certification would not serve judicial economy, as individual lawsuits for damages might still follow, defeating the purpose of a class action.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentTitle VIISection 1981Class Certification DenialJudicial EconomyRes Judicata
References
43
Case No. 12-01051
Regular Panel Decision

Schuman v. Connaught Group, Ltd. (In re Connaught Group, Ltd.)

Plaintiff Martina Schuman, on behalf of herself and approximately 100 former employees, filed an adversary proceeding seeking class certification for claims under the Federal and New York State WARN Acts against The Connaught Group Creditors’ Liquidating Trust. The claims alleged that employees were terminated without the legally required 60 days' notice on or about January 30, 2012, following the debtor The Connaught Group, Ltd.'s bankruptcy filing. The Trust opposed, arguing inadequate representation due to differing priorities for pre-petition versus post-petition claims and that a class action was inferior to the bankruptcy claims process. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the Southern District of New York, found that the plaintiff met the criteria for numerosity, commonality, and typicality under Rule 23(a). It ruled that no conflict of interest existed between pre-petition and post-petition claimants as the confirmed bankruptcy plan provided equal treatment for both administrative and priority claims, and the class action was deemed superior given the early filing and the purpose of Rule 23 to avoid multiple individual claims. The motion for class certification was therefore granted.

Class ActionWARN ActBankruptcy LawCreditorsMass LayoffEmployee RightsClass CertificationStatute of LimitationsBar DateAdversary Proceeding
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E & v. SLACK, INC. v. Shell Oil Co.

Appellants, former Shell service station operators, appealed a trial court's denial of class action certification against Shell Oil Company. They alleged Shell manipulated gasoline prices to collect secret rent through a "Variable Rent Program" (VRP), claiming breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, statutory fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, finding that the appellants failed to satisfy the requirements for adequate representation and commonality under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the court noted conflicts of interest between former and present dealers and that individual factual questions regarding liability, damages, and defenses predominated over common issues, making a class action an inferior method of adjudication.

Class actionClass certification denialAbuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42Commonality requirementAdequacy of representationPredominance of individual issuesSuperiority of class actionVariable Rent Program (VRP)Breach of contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,846 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