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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vengurlekar v. Silverline Technologies, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Gajanan Vengurlekar and Umesh Pachpande brought a class action alleging violations of ERISA, FLSA, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, along with state common law claims, against Silver-line Technologies, Inc., SeraNova, Inc., and affiliated entities. They sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or alternatively under Rule 23(b)(3). The court denied class certification in its entirety. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was found inappropriate because the primary relief sought was monetary damages. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) was denied due to insufficient numerosity for ERISA claims, lack of similarly situated plaintiffs for the FLSA claim (which was dismissed sua sponte as plaintiffs were exempt), and issues with commonality, typicality, and predominance for the state law claims, particularly concerning the extraterritorial application of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Class ActionERISA ViolationsFLSA ViolationsNew Jersey Wage Payment LawClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality Requirement
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas brought claims against Lufkin Industries under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging disparate impact due to the company's subjective employment practices. The court considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which involved demonstrating a prima facie case of disparate impact and satisfying the criteria under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Statistical analysis presented by the plaintiffs indicated a significant disparate impact on African-American employees across various employment aspects, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and layoffs. The court determined that the proposed class met all requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and qualified for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), primarily seeking injunctive relief. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification, severing individual monetary relief claims to ensure the predominance of injunctive relief.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionDisparate ImpactSubjective Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimSection 1981 ClaimRule 23 CertificationNumerosityCommonality
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 1987

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. County of Nassau

Plaintiffs, employees in "traditionally female jobs," brought a sex discrimination suit against Nassau County under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This Memorandum and Order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court first dismisses the Title VII claims of two male plaintiffs, Stephen Goldberg and Fred Jordan, finding they lack standing because their alleged injury stems from discrimination against women, not against them as men. The court then analyzes whether the remaining female plaintiffs and the union (AFSCME) satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Concluding that the plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing, particularly given the allegation of a common compensation plan based on sex discrimination, the court grants the motion for class certification.

Sex DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIClass ActionClass CertificationEmployment DiscriminationWage DiscriminationFederal Civil ProcedureStandingEastern District of New York
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs, H-2B temporary foreign workers, filed a class action against Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (SFSI) and its officials, alleging underpayment and exploitation under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court considered Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. After a rigorous analysis, the Court found that the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, the Court concluded that certification was appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and incidental monetary damages, and Rule 23(b)(3) for non-incidental monetary damages. The Court also determined that a six-year statute of limitations applied to the AWPA claims, ultimately granting the Plaintiffs' motion.

H-2B visa programMigrant workersAgricultural workersWage violationsFLSA claimsAWPA claimsClass actionEmployment lawLabor disputesUndercapitalized workers
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
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

Spann v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.

Plaintiffs Henry Spann, Carol Munley, and Catherine Chiapparoli filed a class action against AOL Time Warner, Inc. and several pension plans, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) due to the miscalculation of pension benefits by failing to annualize partial years of compensation. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. The court denied the motion, finding that individualized inquiries into releases signed by many potential class members prevented the plaintiffs' claims from being typical of the class. This issue, concerning whether the waivers of ERISA claims were knowing and voluntary, would predominate over common questions, thus failing the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ERISAClass ActionClass CertificationPension BenefitsWaiver of ClaimsGeneral ReleasesLump Sum ReleasesFiduciary DutyAdministrative RemediesExhaustion Doctrine
References
48
Case No. MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

Koch v. Hicks

This Opinion and Order addresses a motion for class certification within a Multi-District Litigation concerning groundwater contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from a gasoline station. Plaintiffs sought to certify two subclasses: a Homeowner Subclass and a Medical Monitoring Subclass, bringing claims under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability. The court granted certification for the Homeowner Subclass, finding it satisfied all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and was maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1). However, the motion for certification of the Medical Monitoring Subclass was denied, with the court concluding that medical monitoring constitutes a form of damages under Maryland law rather than a distinct cause of action. The court also clarified that, in the context of class certification within MDL, the law of the transferor circuit (Fourth Circuit) applies over the transferee circuit (Second Circuit), following the Supreme Court's decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

Class ActionClass CertificationMulti-District LitigationRule 23MTBE ContaminationGroundwater ContaminationUnderground Storage TanksEnvironmental LawToxic TortHomeowner Subclass
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 16,652 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