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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Watnick

Jay and Marianna Watnick, New York residents, were severely injured in a car accident in Quebec with Jay Anderson. They were insured by Federal Insurance Company under a policy with uninsured and underinsured motorist endorsements. After seeking limited compensation from Quebec's Régie, Federal denied their claims, arguing Anderson's vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured, and sought to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court granted Federal's application to stay both claims, but the Appellate Division reversed the stay for the underinsured claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that Anderson's vehicle was not uninsured. However, it disagreed with the Appellate Division on the underinsured claim, ruling that the Watnicks had not exhausted by payment the limits of all applicable bodily insurance policies as required by statute and their policy. Consequently, the Court modified the Appellate Division's order, granting Federal's application to permanently stay arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's original decision to stay both claims.

Underinsured Motorist CoverageUninsured Motorist EndorsementCar AccidentQuebec Automobile Insurance ActExhaustion of Policy LimitsInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawArbitration StayNew York Insurance PolicyInter-jurisdictional Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2009

Federal Insurance Co. v. Ruiz

Federal Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that sided with Carol Ruiz in a worker's compensation dispute. Ruiz, a secretary, suffered a workplace injury on January 24, 2005, and was later diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which Federal disputed. The central issue was whether Federal waived its right to contest the compensability of Ruiz's carpal tunnel syndrome by failing to do so within the 60-day period stipulated by Texas Labor Code § 409.021(c). Both a hearing officer and an appeals panel evaluated whether the condition could have been reasonably discovered during that period, with the appeals panel concluding Federal had indeed waived its right. The trial court affirmed the appeals panel's decision, and the appellate court, aligning with precedents like Sanders v. American Protection Insurance Co., also affirmed, ruling that the condition's compensability was waived.

Worker's CompensationWaiver RuleTexas Labor CodeCarpal Tunnel SyndromeExtent of InjuryCompensability DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityRepetitive Trauma
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Village Parents Group v. United States Federal Highway Administration

The plaintiff, Highland Village Parents Group, challenged a federally-funded road construction project in Denton County, Texas, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit named federal and state transportation agencies and their administrators as defendants. The court dismissed claims against the state defendants, Texas Transportation Commission and Ric Williamson, ruling that the APA applies only to federal agencies. Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation. The court also determined that a subsequent reevaluation of the project did not reopen the claims or provide a new basis for a lawsuit, as the modifications were considered minor. Consequently, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Section 4(f) Department of Transportation ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
References
21
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Council of Jewish Federations

Tyrone Humphrey sued his former employer, Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Humphrey claimed experiences of retrenchment, demotion, a racially hostile environment, denial of leave, unequal pay, negative performance evaluations, and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved to dismiss, citing untimely EEOC filings, unincluded claims, mootness, and statute of limitations. The court found Humphrey's EEOC filings timely due to a worksharing agreement and his hostile environment claim reasonably related. The court also ruled § 1981 claims were timely and prior arbitration did not preclude federal civil rights claims, ultimately denying the motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissTimeliness of ClaimsEEOC Worksharing AgreementStatute of LimitationsArbitration PreclusionHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Little v. Federal Container Corporation

The plaintiff employee, Norman Little, sued the defendant employer, Federal Container Corporation of Tennessee, for damages alleging breach of a 12-month employment contract due to wrongful discharge without cause. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the employer breached the contract by discharging Little because his work was deemed satisfactory by his supervisor, Mr. R. E. McCrory, and thus the defendant could not discharge him for cause. On appeal, the court held that the contract provision making Mr. McCrory the sole judge of satisfactory work did not prevent the employer from discharging the plaintiff for just cause. The court found the Trial Judge's ruling on this point was an error of law that restricted the introduction of evidence. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new trial to allow both parties to present full proof regarding the existence of just cause for the plaintiff's discharge.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractWrongful TerminationJust Cause for DischargeAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationManagerial DiscretionCorporate ReorganizationTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1984

In Re Perez

This Memorandum Opinion addresses the assessment of excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees against Hallie W. Gill, referred to as "Debtors’ Counsel," under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Bankruptcy Rule 9011. Suburban Coastal Corporation ("Suburban Coastal") sought to recover fees and expenses incurred while attempting to regain its collateral across three successive Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases filed by Debtors’ Counsel on behalf of the debtors. The court found that Debtors’ Counsel repeatedly filed Chapter 13 cases in bad faith, without the debtors having regular income or a viable plan, solely to prevent Suburban Coastal's foreclosure sales. These filings, including motions for voluntary dismissal, were deemed to display a "serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice" and to have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings. The court concluded that Debtors’ Counsel willfully abused judicial processes and violated Rule 11 and Bankruptcy Rule 9011, and ordered him to pay Suburban Coastal $5,290.00 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

BankruptcyChapter 13SanctionsAttorney MisconductForeclosureAutomatic StayFrivolous FilingsBad FaithRule 11Bankruptcy Rule 9011
References
7
Case No. 12-01051
Regular Panel Decision

Schuman v. Connaught Group, Ltd. (In re Connaught Group, Ltd.)

Plaintiff Martina Schuman, on behalf of herself and approximately 100 former employees, filed an adversary proceeding seeking class certification for claims under the Federal and New York State WARN Acts against The Connaught Group Creditors’ Liquidating Trust. The claims alleged that employees were terminated without the legally required 60 days' notice on or about January 30, 2012, following the debtor The Connaught Group, Ltd.'s bankruptcy filing. The Trust opposed, arguing inadequate representation due to differing priorities for pre-petition versus post-petition claims and that a class action was inferior to the bankruptcy claims process. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the Southern District of New York, found that the plaintiff met the criteria for numerosity, commonality, and typicality under Rule 23(a). It ruled that no conflict of interest existed between pre-petition and post-petition claimants as the confirmed bankruptcy plan provided equal treatment for both administrative and priority claims, and the class action was deemed superior given the early filing and the purpose of Rule 23 to avoid multiple individual claims. The motion for class certification was therefore granted.

Class ActionWARN ActBankruptcy LawCreditorsMass LayoffEmployee RightsClass CertificationStatute of LimitationsBar DateAdversary Proceeding
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 12,910 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