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

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs Caroline Marks, Maxine Blonstein, and Lois Steward, representing classes of consumers and indirect purchasers of tamoxifen citrate in California, Florida, and Kansas, respectively, originally filed state antitrust and consumer protection claims against defendants Zeneca, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca PLC (collectively “Zeneca”) and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”). The cases were removed to federal court, and plaintiffs now seek to remand them, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue for federal question jurisdiction under federal patent law, the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, and collateral attack on federal court orders, as well as diversity jurisdiction for the Marks class action. The Court, applying Second Circuit law, concludes that the plaintiffs' claims necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the motions to remand are denied, and the cases remain in federal court.

AntitrustPatent LawFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMultidistrict LitigationHatch-Waxman ActTamoxifenGeneric DrugsSettlement AgreementWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtin v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JER.

The plaintiff, Curtin, filed an action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging personal injuries due to negligence by Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey during an emergency evacuation. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) and its implicit preemption of state law aviation safety standards. Curtin moved to remand the case, arguing that federal question or diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the FAA did not preempt state negligence claims. The court denied Curtin's motion, concluding that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for aviation safety, the purpose of the FAA, and its legislative history indicate that the standard of care is a matter of federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Federal Aviation ActPreemptionAviation SafetyState Law NegligenceFederal Question JurisdictionRemovalEmergency EvacuationAirline Deregulation ActSaving ClauseField Preemption
References
31
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

Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co.

This case addresses a Plaintiff's motion to remand their state-law claims, arising from alleged pesticide exposure, back to state court after the Defendant removed the action to federal court. The Defendant argued for federal question jurisdiction based on the preemption of state-law claims by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Court, however, determined that FIFRA preemption does not create federal question jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine because FIFRA lacks a private right of action and a specific grant of federal jurisdiction. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's alternative argument for diversity jurisdiction, noting that the Defendant is a citizen of the forum state, which prohibits removal. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal PreemptionFIFRARemoval JurisdictionComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsPesticide RegulationFifth Circuit LawDiversity JurisdictionRemand Motion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Republic Steel Corp.

Thirty plaintiffs filed a complaint against Republic Builders Products Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation, alleging toxic chemical emissions from a Tennessee plant caused health and environmental issues. They sought damages and injunctive relief under state and federal environmental laws, and common law torts. The defendants moved to dismiss, challenging subject matter jurisdiction. The court ruled that complete diversity jurisdiction was lacking as Republic Builders' principal place of business was in Tennessee. While denying federal question jurisdiction for claims seeking compensatory damages under the Clean Air Act and Toxic Substances Control Act, the court found that a claim for 'response costs' under CERCLA could establish federal question jurisdiction. However, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state tort claims, determining they predominated over the limited federal CERCLA claim, and dismissed them without prejudice for resolution in state tribunals.

Environmental LawToxic TortsSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionClean Air ActToxic Substances Control ActCERCLAPendent JurisdictionCorporate Veil
References
23
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. CC-0104094B
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2001

Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jerry Rogers and Jodi Shelton sued American Airlines (AA) in state court for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation after allegedly missing an international connecting flight due to misinformation about infant passport requirements. AA removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the Warsaw Convention does not completely preempt their state law claims to establish federal removal jurisdiction. The Court, applying the Fifth Circuit's tripartite test for complete preemption, found no clear congressional intent for the Warsaw Convention to exclusively channel such cases into federal courts. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to County Court at Law Number 2 of Dallas County, Texas, due to a lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Motion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionWarsaw ConventionComplete Preemption DoctrineWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleInternational Air TravelAirline LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationJurisdictional Dispute
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1998

Greenidge v. Mundo Shipping Corp.

Plaintiffs Kathleen Greenidge and Wal-wyn Greenidge sued Mundo Shipping Corporation in New York State court for conversion and gross negligence after their automobile, entrusted to Mundo for shipment to the West Indies, was not returned. Mundo removed the action to federal court in the Eastern District of New York, asserting admiralty and federal question jurisdiction based on a bill of lading that allegedly incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The Greenidges moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that their claims were state law claims. The court found that neither admiralty nor federal question jurisdiction was established, concluding that COGSA does not completely preempt state law and that federal defenses do not create federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the Greenidges' motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and dismissed Mundo's cross-motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The court also granted the Greenidges reasonable costs and expenses for the improvident removal.

Removal JurisdictionAdmiralty JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionCarriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)Saving to Suitors ClauseComplete PreemptionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful PleadingState Court RemandConversion Claim
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 7,807 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