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
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

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

Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs, H-2B temporary foreign workers, filed a class action against Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (SFSI) and its officials, alleging underpayment and exploitation under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court considered Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. After a rigorous analysis, the Court found that the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, the Court concluded that certification was appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and incidental monetary damages, and Rule 23(b)(3) for non-incidental monetary damages. The Court also determined that a six-year statute of limitations applied to the AWPA claims, ultimately granting the Plaintiffs' motion.

H-2B visa programMigrant workersAgricultural workersWage violationsFLSA claimsAWPA claimsClass actionEmployment lawLabor disputesUndercapitalized workers
References
42
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. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. National Distillers

This memorandum opinion addresses the disposition of approximately $18,400.80 in unclaimed funds from a securities fraud class action settlement involving shareholders of Almadén Vineyards, Inc. and National Distillers, which concluded over two decades prior. Despite efforts by class counsel and administrators to locate missing class members, a residue remained due to undeliverable or uncashed checks. Class counsel moved for an order authorizing a charitable donation of these unclaimed funds to The Legal Aid Society Civil Division. The court granted the motion, applying cy pres principles. It found that further pro rata distribution to the numerous class members would be infeasible and negligible, and that the chosen recipient, a non-profit legal services organization, was appropriate given the indirect benefit to the public and class counsel's equitable stake in the funds.

securities fraudclass action settlementunclaimed fundscy pres doctrinecharitable donationLegal Aid Societyequitable claimfund distributionshareholder litigationjudicial discretion
References
21
Case No. 11-cv-7679, 11-cv-8249
Regular Panel Decision

Tiro v. Public House Investments, LLC

This case consolidates two actions brought by "tipped/front of house" and "non-tipped/back of house" employees against several New York City restaurants and individuals for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their state-law claims. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion in part, certifying eight subclasses based on employment at specific restaurants (Public House, Butterfield, Wicker Park, Black Finn) within the two broader categories of tipped and non-tipped workers. The court appointed Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel but directed the parties to submit new joint proposed class notices. Defendants are also ordered to disclose employee information for the subclasses.

Class certificationWage disputeFLSANYLLLabor lawRestaurant industryCollective actionTipped employeesNon-tipped employeesEmployer liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 03-10-00648-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2013

Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA v. Susan Combs, State of Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas

This case concerns an appeal by "Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA" against the Texas Comptroller and Attorney General. The Assignees sought sales tax refunds on rebated amounts, claiming assignments from the retailers allowed them to pursue these claims. The Comptroller denied the claims, arguing that the settlement-class counsel lacked authority to represent individual class members in administrative proceedings, as the tax code does not permit class-action refunds. The trial court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling that the initial orders appointing settlement-class counsel for individual administrative proceedings were void due to a lack of judicial power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the trial courts lacked jurisdiction to appoint class counsel for individual claims outside the class action, thereby confirming that the Assignees failed to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign immunity was not waived.

Sales Tax RefundClass ActionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionCollateral AttackRule 42 (Texas Civil Procedure)Attorney AppointmentImplied Powers
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Assignees of Best Buy v. Combs

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by "the Assignees" (consumers who overpaid sales tax on rebated items) against the Texas Comptroller. The Assignees sought tax refunds based on claims assigned to them by retailers (Best Buy, OfficeMax, CompUSA) in prior class-action settlements. Settlement-class counsel had filed aggregated refund claims with the Comptroller, but these were denied on grounds of lack of authority for class counsel to represent individual members in administrative proceedings. The trial court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that the trial courts in the initial class actions lacked jurisdiction to appoint class counsel for individual administrative claims, making those appointments void and thus preventing the Assignees from exhausting administrative remedies to waive sovereign immunity.

Sales Tax RefundClass Action SettlementPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityAttorney AppointmentJudicial JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeCivil Procedure Rule 42Collateral Attack
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,638 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