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
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. 1:03-CV-147, 1:03-MD-1552
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2007

In re Unumprovident Corp. Erisa Benefits Denial Actions

This memorandum addresses the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a multi-district litigation against UnumProvident Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege a corporate-wide scheme to illegally deny or terminate long-term disability claims, violating ERISA. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the defendants' profit-driven claims review process. The Court grants the motion, finding the proposed class definition is adequate and that all Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) are met. Additionally, the Court determines that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied as injunctive relief predominates and the "immature tort" doctrine is inapplicable.

ERISAClass ActionDisability InsuranceFiduciary DutyInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefClaims DenialCorporate MisconductInsurance PracticesRule 23
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc.

Plaintiffs moved to reconsider a December 7, 2006 order that denied class certification without prejudice in their action against La Belle Farm, Inc. District Judge McMahon denied the motion, clarifying that the court had not made a definitive ruling on AWPA applicability but rather postponed class certification. This postponement was based on new Second Circuit precedent (Miles v. Merrill Lynch) which deemed it premature to rule on class certification when it intertwined with merits-related issues before discovery. The court also addressed the FLSA representative action, noting it was not overlooked but similarly declined due to the plaintiffs' class definition. The judge indicated a willingness to certify FLSA and Labor Law classes if plaintiffs submitted an appropriately redefined class.

Class CertificationReconsideration MotionAWPAFLSANew York Labor LawMigrant WorkersSeasonal WorkersAgricultural WorkersDiscoveryMerits Determination
References
4
Case No. 03-02-00524-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2003

Citizens Insurance Company of America Citizens, Inc. Harold E. Riley and Mark A. Oliver v. Dr. Fernando Hakim Daccach

This case addresses an interlocutory appeal concerning the certification of a class action. Appellants, including Citizens Insurance Company of America, challenged the district court's decision to certify a class action brought by Dr. Fernando Hakim Daccach. Dr. Daccach alleged that Citizens unlawfully sold unregistered securities in Texas, specifically certain life insurance policies (CICA policies) that allowed assignment of benefits to offshore trusts for stock purchases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's class certification order, with a modification to the class definition. The court found that all class certification requirements were met, including proper class definition, the applicability of Texas law without a "most significant relationship" analysis, and the predominance of common issues.

Class ActionSecurities Act ViolationsTexas Securities ActClass CertificationChoice of LawPredominance of Common IssuesTypicalityAdequacy of RepresentationSuperiority of Class ActionInterlocutory Appeal
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Hakim Daccach

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal by Citizens Insurance Company of America and related parties, collectively "Citizens," challenging a district court's order certifying a class action. The underlying suit was initiated by Dr. Fernando Hakim Daccach, alleging that Citizens unlawfully sold unregistered securities, specifically CICA life insurance policies, from Texas without complying with the Texas Securities Act. Citizens contested the class certification on grounds of class definition, an inadequate choice-of-law analysis, and unmet class certification requirements. The appellate court modified the class definition to resolve potential "fail-safe" issues and affirmed the district court's application of Texas law. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion in the certification of the class, affirming the district court's order as modified.

Class ActionSecurities LawTexas Securities ActClass Certification RequirementsChoice of LawPredominance of Common IssuesTypicalityAdequacy of RepresentationSuperiority of Class ActionInterlocutory Appeal
References
27
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,605 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