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
May 26, 2009

Mendez v. Radec Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick Mendez initiated a class action against his former employer, Radec Corporation, and two officers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid wages and retaliatory termination. Defendants sought to decertify the previously certified Rule 23 class, arguing that class counsel was inadequate and that individual issues predominated. The court denied the decertification motion, finding that defendants had waived objections to the procedural timeline of motions. Furthermore, the court determined that class counsel's actions did not amount to inadequacy requiring decertification, and confirmed that common legal and factual questions continued to predominate over individual ones. The decision affirmed the class certification, noting that class members could waive liquidated damages to proceed with Labor Law claims.

Class Action LawFLSALabor Law ClaimsWage and Hour DisputesOvertime CompensationRetaliatory DischargeClass DecertificationRule 23Summary JudgmentAdequacy of Counsel
References
89
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
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

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
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. 09-01-172 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2001

Brian Peters v. Blockbuster, Inc.

This appeal involves a class action lawsuit against Blockbuster, Inc. regarding fees charged for rental items. Appellants, unnamed members of the proposed class, challenged the trial court's certification of a class for settlement purposes, claiming procedural irregularities, inadequate class representatives, and issues with the class notice. They also questioned the trial court's jurisdiction to amend its order while an appeal was pending and argued for deferral to another class action. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's rigorous analysis of class certification requirements, its jurisdiction to amend orders, the adequacy of class representation, typicality of claims, and the sufficiency of the class notice. The court affirmed the trial court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion.

Class Action SettlementConsumer FeesDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionClass CertificationAdequacy of RepresentationTypicality of ClaimsClass NoticeAbuse of Discretion
References
23
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 947 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