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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mira v. Kingston

Plaintiff Leslie Moore Mira, proceeding pro se, filed a claim under Title VII against her former employer Platts/McGraw Hill Financial, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging retaliation for speaking out against sexual harassment, leading to a racially hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and persistent post-employment harassment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court found Plaintiff's federal claims were indeed time-barred as she failed to file an administrative charge within the requisite 300 days. Consequently, the Title VII claims against the individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice as Title VII claims only apply to employers, and the federal claims against Platts were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state and local law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingPro Se LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 09-CV-8140 (KMK)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

In Re Dayton

Plaintiffs Michael Dayton and Barbara Nieves, individually and as guardian for their five infant children, brought action against the City of Middletown, its police officers, Orange County, and the Department of Social Services Orange County (DSS) alleging federal and state law violations. The claims stemmed from a November 2008 incident involving an alleged attack by a felon and subsequent police actions, followed by Family Court proceedings where neglect findings were entered against the parents. The court granted DSS's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding it not a suable entity. Motions to dismiss the federal § 1983 Monell claims against Middletown and Orange County were granted without prejudice due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy. State law claims against Orange County were dismissed without prejudice due to untimely notice of claim for adult plaintiffs, with infant claims requiring state court application. Claims arising from the Family Court's neglect finding and protective order were dismissed with prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but other allegations regarding Orange County's conduct during Family Court proceedings survived. The Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice, citing insufficient factual inconsistencies for dismissal prior to discovery. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Civil Rights ViolationsFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman doctrineMonell claimFailure to Train
References
98
Case No. ADJ10249111
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

Steven R. Crosby vs. DWB Security Services

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order dismissing the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) without prejudice. The Board treated this as a petition for removal, granted it, and rescinded the dismissal order. This action was taken due to the potential for significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the applicant, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation that the UEBTF was improperly dismissed.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderFinal OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiff Patricia Harris Lee sued her former employer, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, Inc., and her supervisor, Barbara Warnock-Morgan, for alleged discrimination and retaliation based on disability, race, and national origin, alongside a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lee claimed constructive termination, a hostile work environment, and refusal to accommodate her disability following a physical altercation with Warnock-Morgan. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed certain claims with prejudice, including all Title VII and ADA claims against Warnock-Morgan, the national origin discrimination claim under Section 1981, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Disability discrimination claims under the ADA, state, and local law, as well as retaliation claims, were dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient pleading. The court denied the motion to dismiss the race discrimination claims in employment, termination, and hostile work environment under Title VII, state, and local law, granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

Disability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEmployment LawFederal CourtADA ClaimsTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 Claims
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munno v. Town of Orangetown

Plaintiff Ennio Munno, a police officer, initiated this federal action against the Town of Orangetown and various officials, alleging wrongful suspension without pay. Munno claimed violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, asserting both property and liberty interests, and also brought a state law claim for malicious prosecution against Kevin Nulty, the chief of police. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion. The decision concluded that Munno was afforded adequate due process prior to and during his suspension, and that he failed to establish the "stigma-plus" standard required for a liberty interest violation due to lack of defamation publication or termination of employment. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentPolice MisconductSuspensionMotion to DismissMalicious ProsecutionStigma-PlusProperty InterestLiberty InterestFederal Civil Procedure
References
33
Case No. ADJ6959869
Regular
Nov 12, 2013

DAVID BODIN vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that dismissed "Entertainment Partners" as a party defendant with prejudice. The applicant sought to have the dismissal be without prejudice to allow for potential rejoining of the defendant. The Board agreed with the judge's recommendation to amend the dismissal order. Therefore, Entertainment Partners is dismissed without prejudice, allowing the applicant to potentially rejoin them if further discovery warrants.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative Trauma InjuryDismissal Without PrejudiceFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeRejoin Defendant
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 15,812 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