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

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. 21 MC 100
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

This opinion addresses motions to stay proceedings in lawsuits filed by thousands of workers, including Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, who claim respiratory and other injuries from 9/11 World Trade Center clean-up efforts. The court clarifies the scope of a prior Second Circuit stay order concerning appeals of immunity claims made by the City of New York and its contractors. Judge Hellerstein rules that the Second Circuit's stay applies to appealing defendants within the CM03-defined World Trade Center site. Consequently, defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to stay is granted, while defendant Verizon New York Inc.'s motion is denied without prejudice, requiring a further showing of its immunity defense. Cases against non-appealing defendants or those outside the CM03 area are generally permitted to proceed with discovery.

World Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-up WorkersRespiratory InjuriesImmunity DefenseMotions to StayAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealCase Management OrdersFederal JurisdictionStabilization Act
References
10
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobias Holdings, Inc. v. Bank United Corp.

Plaintiff has brought a federal securities fraud action alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state common law claims for fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy, and tortious interference, with federal jurisdiction over the state claims based on diversity of citizenship. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The central legal question is whether the automatic stay of discovery provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which applies to federal securities claims, also stays discovery for plaintiff's non-fraud state law claims when jurisdiction over such claims is based on diversity. The court, after examining statutory construction and legislative history, concludes that an unduly broad application of the PSLRA's automatic stay would penalize plaintiffs and encourage inefficient duplication of effort by forcing separate state court actions for common law claims. Therefore, the court held that the PSLRA cannot prohibit discovery on non-fraud common law claims arising under diversity jurisdiction, and discovery relating to these claims shall proceed forthwith.

Securities Litigation Reform ActDiscovery StayDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsSecurities FraudBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceStatutory InterpretationJudicial Efficiency
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello

This case concerns a motion by the United States to intervene in a civil action brought by farm-worker plaintiffs against grower and contractor defendants. The purpose of the intervention was to stay discovery in the civil case until a related criminal trial, United States v. Maria Garcia et al., concludes. The civil and criminal cases share nearly identical facts, charges, and some defendants, raising concerns about criminal defendants using civil discovery to circumvent criminal discovery limitations and potential Fifth Amendment violations. The Court denies the United States' motion to intervene, finding the government has no direct interest in the civil litigation. However, the Court, exercising its inherent power, orders a stay of all discovery in the civil matter until the close of evidence in the related criminal case, citing interests of justice, judicial efficiency, and public interest in law enforcement.

Discovery StayIntervention MotionParallel ProceedingsCriminal-Civil OverlapFifth Amendment PrivilegeJudicial EfficiencyFarm Workers RightsMigrant Workers ProtectionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural Workers Protection Act
References
18
Case No. ADJ7715131
Regular
Jun 28, 2017

CHRISTINE CHAVEZ vs. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of an order staying discovery pending a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The defendant argued the stay caused irreparable harm, preventing them from discovering the impact of the applicant's recent back surgery. The Appeals Board granted removal, agreeing that the premature closure of discovery would cause prejudice. They returned the case to the trial level to expedite an MSC for a proper determination on additional discovery.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement Conferencesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadditional discoverylabor code section 5502(d)(3)lumbar spinecumulative trauma injuryvocational rehabilitation evaluationagreed medical evaluator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Business Money Market Account No. 028-0942059-66

This is a civil forfeiture case initiated by the United States Government. Defendant Nat Schlesinger filed a motion to transfer the case to the Brooklyn Division of the Eastern District, and the government filed a motion to stay discovery pending a related criminal proceeding. The court denied the defendant's motion to transfer, finding no compelling evidence that transfer was necessary for the convenience of parties, witnesses, or in the interest of justice. The court granted the government's motion to stay discovery, determining that civil discovery would adversely affect the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).

Civil ForfeitureMotion to Transfer VenueMotion to Stay DiscoveryRelated Criminal ProceedingsJudicial Guidelines18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1)Venue TransferEastern District of New YorkCase ManagementJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Brigid Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and its subsidiary, Regional Transit Service (RTS), moved to stay a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision dated July 30, 2007. The FTA had ordered RGRTA to cease providing school bus services on routes deemed "prohibited school bus operations" and barred RGRTA from receiving certain federal funds. RGRTA appealed this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a stay pending judicial review. The court, presided over by Judge Larimer, granted the stay in part, postponing the effective date of the FTA's order until October 1, 2007. This partial stay was granted primarily to prevent irreparable harm and potential chaos in student transportation due to the imminent start of the school year, despite the court not being convinced that RGRTA was likely to prevail on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring orderly student transportation. All other aspects of the plaintiff's motion for a stay were denied.

School Bus TransportationFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Stay OrderAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Judicial ReviewPublic InterestIrreparable HarmTripper ServicePublic TransportationCompetition Law
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,789 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