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
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2010

Lindberg v. UHS OF LAKESIDE, LLC

Plaintiffs Cherie Lindberg and Grady Moody filed a motion for conditional class certification under the FLSA against Defendants UHS of Lakeside, LLC, Community Behavioral Health, LLC, and Universal Health Services, alleging unpaid overtime due to an automatic 30-minute meal break deduction policy. The policy applied to all non-exempt employees, regardless of whether they actually took a break, and placed the burden on employees to reverse the deduction via time adjustment forms, which management allegedly discouraged or ignored. The Court applied a lenient "notice stage" standard and found that Plaintiffs made a modest factual showing that they and other putative class members were victims of a common practice leading to improper compensation. The Court granted the motion for conditional class certification for all present and former hourly employees of the defendants who worked at the Memphis, Tennessee facilities from January 7, 2007, to the present. The Court also ordered defendants to provide contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs and directed parties to submit a mutually acceptable notice letter.

FLSAOvertime PayMeal Break DeductionConditional Class CertificationCollective ActionWage and HourHealthcare EmployeesAutomatic Deduction PolicyUnpaid WorkEmployee Compensation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1998

Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for reconsideration in a collective action brought by hourly-paid, non-managerial employees against Ark Restaurants Corp. and its fifteen restaurants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and New Jersey labor laws. Plaintiffs allege a widespread scheme of minimum wage and overtime violations. The court previously authorized class notice, but defendants challenged the scope, arguing a lack of commonality among employees and restaurants. After reviewing new affidavits from plaintiffs demonstrating a factual nexus of common compensation practices and central control by Ark, the court affirmed its earlier ruling. The court authorized notice to be sent to all hourly-paid employees who worked at the 14 New York Ark Restaurants within the last six years and the one New Jersey restaurant within the last three years, for discovery purposes, while reserving the right to decertify or subdivide the class later.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionClass NoticeOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditLabor Law ViolationsEmployment PracticesReconsideration Motion
References
15
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. 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

In Re Cyberonics Inc. Securities Litigation

This consolidated case is a putative securities fraud class action against Cyberonics, Inc. The plaintiff, Cyberonics Investor Group (CIG), filed an amended complaint that expanded the class period and added new claims. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA), a potential lead plaintiff, moved to intervene, compel CIG to republish notice of the lawsuit, and stay proceedings. LACERA argued that the expanded class and new claims necessitated republication under the PSLRA to ensure proper notification and allow the identification of the most appropriate lead plaintiff, given LACERA's significantly larger alleged losses. The court granted LACERA's motions to compel republication of notice and to stay the proceedings, agreeing that the amendments substantially expanded the potential class. However, LACERA's motion to intervene was denied with leave to reurge, and CIG's motion to sever the new claims was denied.

Securities FraudClass ActionPSLRAPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActMotion to InterveneNotice RequirementAmended ComplaintClass PeriodLead PlaintiffStay of Proceedings
References
10
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. 06-10072
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

In Re Musicland Holding Corp.

The court denied the motion for class certification filed by Tracy Kirkman and Taggert Strickland against Musicland Holding Corp., which is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The movants, former in-store managers, sought to certify a class claiming unpaid overtime and benefits under California law. The court found that the proposed class was not certified pre-petition, and while individual employees received actual notice of the bar date, most failed to file timely claims. Allowing the class claim at this late stage would severely disrupt the bankruptcy administration, potentially jeopardize the proposed Plan of Liquidation, and unfairly benefit creditors who neglected to file claims. The decision underscored concerns about the movants' ability to adequately represent both priority and general unsecured claims, given the conflicting interests related to the Plan's financial caps.

Class ActionClass Certification DeniedBankruptcyChapter 11Overtime PayWage ClaimsBar DateAdequacy of RepresentationJudicial DiscretionPlan Confirmation
References
32
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 4,911 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