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

Ergowerx International, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of America

The Court previously dismissed federal claims filed by plaintiff Ergowerx International, LLC (Smartfish) against defendant Maxell Corporation of America (Maxell). The remaining claim was for breach of contract. The Court first addressed whether it had original diversity jurisdiction. Maxell argued that complete diversity was lacking, while Smartfish incorrectly asserted that alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) did not require complete diversity. The Court clarified that alienage jurisdiction is a form of diversity jurisdiction and requires complete diversity. Since Smartfish, as an LLC, takes the citizenship of its members (including New Jersey), and Maxell is a citizen of New Jersey, complete diversity was absent, and thus the Court lacked original jurisdiction. The Court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach-of-contract claim, citing the early stage of the litigation, the dismissal of all federal claims, and the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. The breach-of-contract claim was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Smartfish to pursue it in state court.

Diversity JurisdictionAlienage JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBreach of ContractFederal Claims DismissedState Law ClaimsComplete DiversityLimited Liability Company CitizenshipJudicial EconomyDiscretionary Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Whelan Security Co.

Brian Gonzalez, the Plaintiff, filed an "Original Petition" in Texas state court against Whelan Security Company and Whelan Security of Texas LLC, alleging an on-the-job back injury and subsequent termination/discrimination for instituting a worker's compensation proceeding, in violation of Texas Labor Code Sections 451 et seq. He also claimed unpaid wages. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the wage claim, or alternatively, diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing his worker's compensation claim is non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), and that neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction applies to the wage claim. The Court, presided over by District Judge Philip R. Martinez, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding that the worker's compensation claim is indeed non-removable, and that Defendants failed to demonstrate federal question or diversity jurisdiction for the unpaid wage claim. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney's fees, finding Defendants had objectively reasonable grounds for removal.

Worker's CompensationMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid WagesRetaliatory TerminationTexas Labor CodeState CourtFederal Question
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keith v. Black Diamond Advisors, Inc.

Marvin Keith ("Plaintiff") initiated a multi-count action against Black Diamond Advisors, Inc., Pace Holdings, LLC, Steven Deckoff, and James Walker III ("Defendants"), alleging various claims including breach of contract, fraud, and violations of federal securities laws. Keith asserted subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and a federal question. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of complete diversity among the parties and the inapplicability of federal securities laws to the dispute. The court ruled that complete diversity was absent because Pace, a New York LLC, is treated as an unincorporated entity whose citizenship is determined by all its members, including the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found that Keith's membership interests in Pace and his acquired Eagle interests did not constitute "securities" under federal law, as he retained a degree of control inconsistent with being a passive investor. Consequently, Keith's federal securities fraud claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionLimited Liability CompanyInvestment ContractSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Federal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsComplete Diversity
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farr v. Gonzo Corp.

Plaintiff Julie Farr initiated a class action against Gonzo Corporation, alleging product liability, false advertising under New York General Business Law, and a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 123. The Defendant subsequently removed the case to Federal Court, asserting both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court, contesting the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Court determined that while diversity jurisdiction was not met due to the amount in controversy, it did possess federal question jurisdiction based on the 15 U.S.C. § 123 claim. Consequently, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand, retaining the case in federal court.

Class ActionProduct LiabilityFalse AdvertisingConsumer ProtectionFederal Question JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionMotion to RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionGeneral Business Law
References
8
Case No. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
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

Escobedo v. Time Warner Entertainment Advance Newhouse Partnership

Plaintiff Mario Escobedo sued Time Warner for age discrimination and worker's compensation retaliation in Texas state court. Time Warner removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and arguing that the worker's compensation claim could be severed and remanded while the age discrimination claim remained in federal court. Plaintiff moved to remand the entire case, arguing that the worker's compensation claim is non-removable and, under current federal law, diversity claims cannot be severed from non-removable worker's compensation claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The court, agreeing with the plaintiff, found that § 1441(c) only applies to federal question claims joined with non-removable claims, not diversity claims. Therefore, the federal court lacked jurisdiction to sever and retain the age discrimination claim, leading to the decision to remand the entire case to state court.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationAge DiscriminationRemoval JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)28 U.S.C. § 1445(c)Severance of ClaimsRemand to State CourtTexas Labor Code
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L. Fatato, Inc. v. Beer Drivers Local Union 24

The defendant sought to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a lack of diversity of citizenship between the New York-based plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff, a beer dealer engaged in interstate commerce, had brought the action under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, alleging the defendant labor union engaged in unlawful activities, including inducing employees to refuse to handle beer to compel cessation of business with the plaintiff. The central issue was whether diversity of citizenship is a prerequisite for federal jurisdiction under the Act. The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that Section 303 (29 U.S.C.A. § 187) establishes new substantive federal rights and causes of action that do not require diversity of citizenship, citing supporting federal court interpretations.

Labor Management Relations ActJurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipMotion to DismissInterstate CommerceLabor UnionUnlawful Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottFederal Question JurisdictionStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,457 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