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

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ITT Consumer Financial Corp. v. Tovar

Daniel Tovar sued ITT Financial Services for negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after he was wrongly indicted for embezzlement. Tovar's friend, Frank Chavira, embezzled funds from ITT and deposited them into Tovar's account without his knowledge. ITT reported the findings to the district attorney, leading to Tovar's arrest and subsequent acquittal. The trial court initially directed a verdict against Tovar on malicious prosecution and defamation, but a jury awarded him damages on the other claims. The appellate court reversed the jury's verdict, holding that ITT owed no duty to Tovar in negligence and that Chavira's actions were outside the scope of employment for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also affirmed the directed verdict on malicious prosecution due to lack of malice.

NegligenceGross NegligenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMalicious ProsecutionDefamationEmbezzlementFraudVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentDirected Verdict
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1997

Nunez v. A-T Financial Information, Inc.

Plaintiff, an account executive at A-T Financial Information, Inc. (ATF), alleged sexual harassment and discrimination by defendant Andrews, ATF's Vice President of Sales. During a sales dinner, Andrews made crude sexual remarks to the plaintiff. Following the incident, plaintiff reported the conduct, experienced a deterioration in her work relationships, and was ultimately terminated by ATF. She filed a lawsuit alleging violations of federal and New York Human Rights Law, as well as common law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted ATF's motion to dismiss the common law claims, ruling that the defamation claim lacked special damages, Andrews' conduct, while reprehensible, did not meet the 'outrageous' standard for emotional distress, and New York law does not recognize an implied covenant in at-will employment.

Sexual harassmentWorkplace discriminationHostile work environmentDefamation lawIntentional infliction of emotional distressAt-will employmentMotion to dismissNew York common lawTitle VII claimsHuman Rights Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Seariver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Christopher Richards sued Defendants Seariver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. and Seariver Maritime, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Richards, a temporary maintenance seaman, suffered elbow and shoulder injuries while working for Seariver. He was later terminated after Seariver determined he was permanently disabled in his right arm and could not perform essential job functions, with or without accommodation. The court granted Seariver's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that Richards failed to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination, race/national origin discrimination, or retaliation, and that the conduct alleged for emotional distress did not meet the required level of outrageousness.

Americans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActTexas Commission on Human Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment
References
79
Case No. 11-12-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Linda Lewis v. Ally Financial Inc. F/K/A GMAC, Inc. D/B/A GMAC

Linda Lewis appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ally Financial Inc. Ally Financial had sued Lewis for breach of contract and foreclosure of security interest after she defaulted on a car loan and the vehicle was sold for less than the amount owed. Lewis raised several issues on appeal, including alleged judicial bias (recusal motions), violations of her constitutional rights (Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments), and improper grant of summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no procedural or substantive errors. The court concluded that Lewis failed to preserve some issues and that her arguments lacked merit, thus upholding the lower court's ruling.

Appeals CourtSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractForeclosureRecusal MotionConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,358 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