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. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graybill v. City of New York

Plaintiff Christopher Graybill, a construction worker, sued the City of New York and the Port Authority for injuries sustained while cleaning debris at the World Trade Center site after 9/11. The Port Authority removed the case to federal court, citing Section 408(b)(3) of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which grants exclusive federal jurisdiction for claims 'resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes' of September 11, 2001. Judge Hellerstein denied federal jurisdiction, holding that the case, involving injuries common to general construction sites and New York Labor Law claims, does not fall under the exclusive federal jurisdiction intended by Congress, as the duties and risks were not unique to the special conditions of the 9/11 site. The case was remanded to the New York Supreme Court.

Federal JurisdictionRemand9/11 LitigationWorld Trade CenterConstruction InjuryLabor LawStatutory InterpretationProximate CausationAir Transportation Safety and System Stabilization ActSouthern District of New York
References
28
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03820 [195 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2021

21st Century Pharmacy v. American Intl. Group

21st Century Pharmacy appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed its declaratory judgment action against American International Group (AIG) and the New York Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The pharmacy sought a declaration that it could pursue payment for prescription bills in a plenary court proceeding, rather than solely through the WCB, and also sought a monetary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, asserting the WCB had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that while the WCB holds primary jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation Law applicability, it does not possess exclusive jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of AIG's motion to dismiss.

Declaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionPrescription BillsAppellate ProcedureRemittalPharmacy RightsCourt Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yates v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp.

Michelle Yates commenced an action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, seeking damages for unpaid accrued annual leave and penalties for alleged COBRA notification failures. Her claim for accrued leave was dismissed as moot after she accepted a settlement check. The defendant moved to dismiss the COBRA claim, contending that federal courts held exclusive jurisdiction over such matters concerning statutory penalties. The court affirmed that, according to 29 USC § 1132 (e), claims seeking statutory penalties under COBRA are exclusively within federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the COBRA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to pursue her remaining claims in a federal venue.

CPLR 3211Motion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionCOBRAERISAStatutory PenaltiesExclusive Federal JurisdictionConcurrent JurisdictionAccrued LeaveEmployment Law
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Espinal v. MPI Mgt. LLC

Eddy Espinal appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss his action. The Supreme Court had erroneously found that it lacked jurisdiction, believing Espinal's claim was exclusively under the National Labor Relations Board. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that Espinal's report of unsafe asbestos abatement was not a "concerted" activity covered by the NLRA, nor did it rely on a collective bargaining agreement, thus not falling under the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of lacking jurisdiction due to a prior dismissed NLRB proceeding. The Appellate Division also determined that the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration provision, limited to discrimination claims, did not apply to Espinal's retaliation claim concerning safety violations, leading to the denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyAsbestos AbatementNational Labor Relations ActNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionRetaliation ClaimArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Local Union No. 44 v. Corbetta Construction Co.

Corbetta Construction, a subcontractor on the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge No. 2, faced a jurisdictional dispute between the Bricklayers and Laborers unions over spray curing work. The Bricklayers initially sued Corbetta in state court, securing a temporary order that divided the disputed work, but the case was later removed to federal court. Concurrently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) awarded the spray curing work to the Laborers, finding the Bricklayers' actions constituted an unfair labor practice. The Laborers subsequently intervened in the federal court action, moving to dismiss the complaint and vacate the existing order, asserting the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes. The District Court granted the Laborers' motion, ruling that courts must defer to the NLRB's exclusive competence in resolving work assignment jurisdictional disputes when no voluntary adjustment methods are agreed upon.

Labor LawUnion DisputeConstruction ProjectJurisdictional StrikeFederal CourtState Court ActionIntervention (Civil Procedure)Motion to DismissExclusive CompetenceCollective Bargaining
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kipbea Baking Co. v. Strauss

Plaintiff employer sues two unions, Local 802 and Local 3, for $250,000 in damages under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, alleging breaches of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiff, Kipbea Baking Co., ceased baking operations, leading to picketing by Local 3 and a refusal by Local 802's drivers to cross the picket line, which the plaintiff claims caused business harm. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata from a prior state court action and lack of breach of contract claims, asserting exclusive NLRB jurisdiction. The court rejected the res judicata and exclusive jurisdiction arguments, but found the complaint failed to adequately allege specific breaches of contract under Section 301. The court indicated that the acts described might constitute violations under Section 303 of the Act (secondary boycott activities) and dismissed the complaint, granting leave for the plaintiff to amend to allege jurisdiction under Section 303.

Collective BargainingLabor-Management Relations ActSection 301Section 303Unfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottRes JudicataJurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flight Engineers' International Ass'n v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Flight Engineers' International Association (FEIA) sued Pan American World Airways, Inc. (PAWA) and Pan American Corporation (Pan Am Corp.), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act and their collective bargaining agreement. FEIA claimed defendants refused to arbitrate a contract dispute stemming from the acquisition of Ransome Airlines (later Pan American Express, Inc.) by Pan Am Corp. FEIA contended that PAWA and Pan Am Corp. failed to utilize FEIA-represented Operations Training Instructors (OTIs) to train Ransome personnel. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved representational issues falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. The court, citing precedent from IUFA v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., found that even a claim for contractual damages implicitly involves representational questions regarding work assignment. Concluding the case was indistinguishable from IUFA, the court held that representational disputes are exclusively within the National Mediation Board's purview, thus granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActSubject Matter JurisdictionRepresentational DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Mediation BoardArbitrationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAirline IndustryUnion Dispute
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verdi v. United States

This case addresses the application of pendent jurisdiction in a Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) case where a state common law claim is asserted against a party over whom there is no independent federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs brought an action, including a claim against the Town of Huntington, following a slip and fall accident near a U.S. Post Office. The Town of Huntington moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Magistrate recommended retaining jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of pendent-party jurisdiction. The District Court adopted this recommendation, concluding that pendent-party jurisdiction is appropriate in FTCA cases under these circumstances to ensure all claims can be tried in a single federal forum. Therefore, the Town of Huntington's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for an interlocutory appeal was also denied.

Pendent JurisdictionFederal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallMotion to DismissPersonal InjuryFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCommon Nucleus of Operative FactInterlocutory AppealJudicial Economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,672 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