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

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. 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

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
Feb 20, 2015

Marcus v. AXA Advisors, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of pre-contract associates and employee-agents, filed a class action against AXA Advisors, LLC, AXA Financial Services, LLC, and AXA Network, LLC (collectively, "AXA"). They alleged that AXA misclassified them as independent contractors and outside sales agents, thereby violating the New York Labor Law's minimum wage and overtime provisions. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims. District Judge Pamela K. Chen denied the motion for class certification, finding insufficient commonality among unlicensed pre-contract associates and 20th edition employee-agents due to variations in their working conditions. While licensed pre-contract associates did show commonality, the court determined that the sole proposed class representative, Bennet Marcus, was not typical of that class.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum WageOvertimeIndependent ContractorOutside Sales AgentMisclassificationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Motors Liquidation Co.

This bench decision addresses two contested matters within the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Debtor Motors Liquidation Company (Old GM): a motion for class certification by 'Apartheid Claimants' and the Debtors' objection to these claims. The Apartheid Claimants, South African residents, alleged Old GM aided and abetted the apartheid system. Judge Robert E. Gerber denied class certification, finding that individual issues predominated over common ones, class action was not superior in bankruptcy, and it would unduly delay the case. Furthermore, the court disallowed the underlying claims entirely, citing the binding Second Circuit precedent in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which established that corporations cannot be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute.

Class ActionBankruptcyAlien Tort StatuteCorporate LiabilityApartheid ClaimsClaims DisallowanceDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSecond CircuitChapter 11
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University

The plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on June 15, 1973, but failed to move for a class action determination within the required sixty days, missing the deadline by over four weeks. The court found that this delay hampered public business and that no valid excuse was offered for the untimeliness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' attorneys' failure to adhere to clear rules indicates they would not adequately protect the class interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a class action was granted, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a class action determination was denied.

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,313 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