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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murillo v. Texas a & M University System

Plaintiff Berene Murillo filed a class action lawsuit against the Texas A & M University System and Dr. Edward A. Hiler, alleging widespread misclassification of agricultural workers as independent contractors. This misclassification led to various violations including the Fair Labor Standards Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Federal Insurance Contribution Act, Civil Rights Act, and Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Specifically, the suit claimed failures to pay minimum wage, social security excise taxes, and unemployment benefits. Following extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court reviewed and approved as fair and adequate. The resulting Agreed Class Action Consent Decree mandates defendants to pay damages to class members, correct social security accounts, and implement new employment practices to ensure compliance with federal labor laws, thereby preventing future misclassification of workers.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural WorkersIndependent ContractorsWage and HourSocial Security TaxesUnemployment BenefitsConsent DecreeSettlement AgreementEmployee Misclassification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.

This is a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden, and David M. Martin. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, specifically sections 10(b) and 20(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. The core allegations involve Life Partners' fraudulent business model, which relied on systematically underestimated life expectancies for insurance policies, and improper revenue recognition practices violating GAAP. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of scienter. The Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded material misstatements, omissions, and a strong inference of scienter, citing internal reports, auditor manipulation, and suspicious insider trading activities by defendant Pardo.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissScienterInsider TradingLife Insurance PoliciesFinancial MisrepresentationGAAP ViolationsSEC RegulationsPSLRA
References
39
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

Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc.

Defendant John Mullins & Sons, Inc. moved to dismiss the plaintiff's pendent state law claim or, alternatively, to decertify the class action. The plaintiff had initially filed a class suit in February 1974, alleging violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act and the New York Retail Installment Sales Act. Although the action was tentatively certified as a class action, subsequent amendments to both federal and New York laws imposed significant limitations on recoveries in class actions involving statutory penalties. The court found that allowing the state law class claim to proceed would result in recoveries far exceeding federal limits and would contravene public policy against overwhelming penalty judgments. Therefore, the court dismissed the class action aspect of the plaintiff's state claim for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and decertified the class, while allowing the plaintiff to pursue an individual claim.

Pendent JurisdictionClass ActionTruth-in-Lending ActNew York Retail Installment Sales ActDismissal of ClaimDecertification of ClassStatutory PenaltiesFederal Question JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionFederal-State Conflict
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
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

Engineered Air v. LeCesse Bros. Contracting, Inc.

This is a concurring opinion regarding a class action lawsuit filed under Article 3-A of the Lien Law. The plaintiff, a material supplier to subcontractor G.A. Dyce, Inc., sued LeCesse Brothers Contracting, Inc., the contractor, to share funds owed to Dyce. The core issue concerned LeCesse’s affirmative defense, which sought to offset legal expenses incurred in defending the action against funds owed to Dyce, based on a subcontract provision. The concurring judge agrees with the majority's decision that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The opinion clarifies that the plaintiff is subrogated to Dyce's rights, and LeCesse should not be allowed to deduct legal fees. It also emphasizes the distinct trust obligations under the Lien Law, clarifying that a contractor is not a guarantor for a subcontractor's creditors.

Lien LawTrust FundsSubcontractorContractorClass ActionAffirmative DefenseLegal FeesMechanics' LiensSubrogationAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 12,012 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