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 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Association of Machinists Workers v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A.

The plaintiff union sought a preliminary injunction against Alitalia, alleging violations related to employee medical coverage, job preferences for part-time employees, and the unjust discharge of Joseph Cammarata, arguing these constituted breaches of collective bargaining agreements and the Railway Labor Act. The court determined that most of the plaintiff's claims, specifically those concerning medical reimbursement and part-time employee numbers, were 'minor disputes' under the Railway Labor Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alitalia System Board of Adjustment. Regarding Cammarata's discharge, the court found no irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief, noting his current medical inability to work. Ultimately, the court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the System Board of Adjustment was the proper forum for resolving these disputes.

Preliminary InjunctionRailway Labor ActMinor DisputesSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementAnti-Union AnimusIrreparable HarmFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment PracticesMedical Coverage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Otis Elevator Co.

A union moved for a preliminary injunction to compel an employer to reinstate an employee discharged for violating a company rule prohibiting gambling. The employee was convicted for possessing policy slips on premises during working hours. An arbitrator had previously reinstated the employee without back pay, finding discharge too harsh. The employer argued the arbitrator exceeded his power. The court denied the union's motion, ruling that the arbitration award clashed with public policy against organized gambling and that granting the injunction would be unconscionable and aid law-breaking.

Preliminary InjunctionArbitration Award EnforcementLabor-Management RelationsEmployee DischargeGamblingPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewCollective BargainingJust CauseIrreparable Harm
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. NLRB v. P & W ELEC., INC.

The Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, filed an application for a temporary injunction against Respondent P & W Electric, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging unfair labor practices. The court, presided over by Judge Gershon in the Eastern District of New York, found reasonable cause to believe that P & W Electric had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Michael Finn, Dane Ault, and John Kwarta due to their union organizing activities. The court determined that the requested injunctive relief, which included a cease and desist order and interim reinstatement of the three employees, was "just and proper" to preserve the pre-unfair labor practice status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the union's organizational efforts. Despite the respondent's arguments regarding employee misconduct, potential financial penalties, and alleged delay by the NLRB, the court found these insufficient to outweigh the need for injunction. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was granted, ordering P & W Electric to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate the named employees, and post the court's order.

Temporary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingEmployee ReinstatementCease and Desist OrderSection 10(j)Reasonable CauseJust and Proper ReliefLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. Fish Workers Union of Greater New York

The plaintiff, Schwartz, a self-employed fish store owner, had previously employed one worker but discharged him due to a lack of business. Despite having no current employees, Schwartz was a member of an employer association engaged in a labor dispute with the defendant union regarding a new contract. The court determined that a labor dispute existed, emphasizing the broader economic dispute between the employer association and the union, rather than just an isolated employer-employee relationship. Schwartz sought an injunction against the union for misleading signs and loud talking. The court denied the temporary injunction but stipulated that no misleading signs claiming a lockout should be used by the defendant local, finding loud talking too vague for injunctive relief. The ruling highlighted the statutory definition of a labor dispute and the implications of an employer's membership in an association.

Labor dispute definitionInjunction denialEmployer association membershipUnion picketing legalitySingle-owner businessCollective bargaining disputeMisleading sign injunctionLabor Law 701(8)Temporary injunctive reliefEconomic group conflict
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers of America

This case involves an appeal concerning a denied injunction request filed by a clothing manufacturers' association against an operatives' association. The manufacturers sought to prevent the operatives from issuing circulars to tradesmen, which urged them to discontinue business with the plaintiffs. The court observed that both parties engaged in similar tactics, with the manufacturers threatening to discharge operatives and the defendants calling for boycotts. Finding no evidence of violence or illegal threats by the operatives, and noting that both sides employed similar methods, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not approach the court with "clean hands." Consequently, the appellate court reversed the injunction order and denied the motion.

Labor disputeInjunctionTrade unionEmployers' associationBoycottClean hands doctrineAppellate reviewFreedom of associationEconomic coercionIndustrial relations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1962

Kaynard v. Local 140, Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union, United Furniture Workers of America

The Acting Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Local 140, a labor organization. The NLRB alleged that Local 140 engaged in unfair labor practices by coercing retailers to stop selling Sealy products, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). This action stemmed from a dispute after Sealy Brooklyn lost its franchise, leading to employee discharges represented by Local 140. The court found reasonable cause to believe Local 140 had violated the Act, rejecting arguments including claims of primary picketing or First Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottPicketingLabor UnionRetailer CoercionFirst Amendment DefenseLabor LawJudicial Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,725 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