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

Insta-Bulk, Inc. v. Powertex Inc.

Powertex, Inc. sought to hold Insta-Bulk, Inc. in contempt for allegedly violating a 1983 injunction by selling patented products outside of agreed-upon territories. Insta-Bulk moved to dismiss the contempt motion, arguing the injunction was inapplicable due to an existing license agreement, or alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration as per the license agreement. The District Court denied Insta-Bulk's motion to dismiss the contempt application, stating that the applicability of the injunction depended on whether Insta-Bulk's actions were authorized by the license. However, the court granted Insta-Bulk's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the dispute over sales authorization fell under the license agreement's arbitration clause. The court also clarified that arbitration obligations can survive contract expiration, citing Supreme Court precedent.

ContemptInjunctionPatent InfringementLicense AgreementArbitrationStay of ProceedingsContract DisputeFederal CourtSettlement AgreementJurisdiction
References
2
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eppolito

Narsiza Eppolito, the Debtor, filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and was discharged from personal liability on her debts, including a note owned by CitiMortgage, Inc. Years later, after defaulting on her mortgage, Citi offered a loan modification agreement which included a subordinate note and mortgage in favor of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a portion of the discharged debt. The Debtor filed a Motion for Contempt, arguing this was an attempt to reaffirm a discharged debt in violation of the discharge injunction. The Court granted the Debtor's motion, finding Citi in contempt for attempting to collect on a discharged debt by requiring the subordinate note. The Court also awarded the Debtor attorney's fees for the costs incurred in bringing the motion.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionContempt MotionLoan ModificationReaffirmation of DebtHUD Partial Claim ProgramPersonal LiabilityMortgage DebtAttorney's FeesDebtor Protection
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund v. Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC

Plaintiff Funds moved for reconsideration of a previous opinion and to hold the defendant Vanderveer in contempt. The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that Vanderveer was bound by the 1997 Agreement's 'Evergreen Clause' to continue contributions after April 20, 2000, as the subsequent 2000 Agreement did not bind Vanderveer and no cancellation notice was filed. The motion to hold Vanderveer in contempt for willfully delaying the filing of a $75,000 bond was also granted, with Vanderveer ordered to pay the Funds' costs and attorney's fees. However, the contempt motion was denied as to Abraham Weider, Vanderveer's principal, as he was not a named party.

Collective Bargaining AgreementEvergreen ClauseMotion for ReconsiderationContempt MotionEmployer ContributionsPension FundsAnnuity FundsLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)Local Civil Rule 6.3
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Dillon

The debtor filed a motion for contempt against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), alleging a willful violation of the automatic stay by refusing to return funds levied from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) prior to the bankruptcy filing. The debtor also filed a turnover motion for these funds, which the court dismissed procedurally. The court first addressed sovereign immunity, concluding that while declaratory and injunctive relief might be available, it lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages against the IRS because the government had not filed a claim in the bankruptcy case. Furthermore, the court determined that the Tennessee exemption statute cited by the debtor did not apply to federal levies, meaning the IRA accounts were not exempt from the IRS's action. Consequently, even assuming a technical violation of the automatic stay, the debtor suffered no actual damages, and the motion for contempt was denied.

Automatic StaySovereign ImmunityBankruptcy CodeInternal Revenue ServiceIRA AccountsFederal LevyState Exemption LawMonetary DamagesContempt MotionTurnover Motion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Parts, LLC

The case concerns a motion for civil contempt filed by creditors Innovative Transmission and Engine Company, LLC (ITEC) and D.R. Watson Holdings, LLC (Watson) against officers Richard S. Massaro, Jr. and Gregory T. Samer, and counsel John P. Bartolomei, of the debtor World Parts, LLC. The movants alleged violations of Bankruptcy Rules 9011 (for inaccurate financial statements) and 9020 (for violating a court order to segregate assets). The court denied sanctions under Rule 9011, finding it inapplicable to unsigned monthly reports and due to procedural deficiencies. However, the court found Massaro and Samer in contempt under Rule 9020 for failing to segregate ITEC assets as ordered. Due to a subsequent settlement between the movants and the trustee, actual damages related to asset misappropriation were resolved. Therefore, the court limited sanctions against Massaro and Samer to consequential damages, specifically reasonable legal expenses of $6,000, finding the movants' requested amount excessive due to protracted litigation.

Bankruptcy LawContempt of CourtRule 9011 SanctionsRule 9020 ContemptCash Collateral OrderAsset SegregationDebtor's Officers LiabilityCivil ContemptDamages CalculationSettlement Impact
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmitz v. St. Regis Paper Co.

Plaintiff Kathleen M. Schmitz, having been reinstated to a new position following a successful Title VII employment discrimination suit against St. Regis Paper Company (now Champion International Corporation), filed a motion for contempt. She alleged that the new role was not comparable to her previous marketing manager position. The District Court denied her motion, ruling that her claim was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to an unreasonable delay in filing the motion after becoming aware of her concerns. Additionally, the court found that Schmitz failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Champion did not comply with the reinstatement order, determining the new position was sufficiently comparable regarding pay, title, and duties.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Reinstatement OrderMotion for ContemptEquitable Doctrine of LachesComparable Employment PositionJob ResponsibilitiesSuccessor CorporationMerger Impact
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc.

The reorganized Chapter XI debtor, Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc., initiated a motion to hold Pension Fund Iron Workers Local 455 in contempt. Computerized argued that its Chapter XI confirmation order discharged any potential withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which the Pension Fund was attempting to collect post-confirmation. However, the court determined that Computerized's collective bargaining agreement was not rejected during bankruptcy and remained in effect, and thus the withdrawal liability arose in June 1982, post-confirmation, when Computerized ceased operations. The court held that this post-confirmation claim was not provable or dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Act and that the MPPAA's application was constitutional and not retroactive. Consequently, the application to hold the Pension Fund in contempt was denied.

BankruptcyChapter XIContemptMPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementPost-confirmation ClaimsDischargeExecutory Contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,531 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