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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1999

Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Services Corp.

Plaintiffs, Lawrence Arduini, Joseph Messina, and the Arduini/Messina Partnership, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit against National Medical Financial Services Corporation (NMFS), Douglas R. Colkitt, and Alan H.L. Carr-Locke, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state law fraud claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the dismissal of the federal securities fraud claims, determining they were time-barred because public SEC disclosures had placed plaintiffs on inquiry notice of potential fraud more than one year before filing. Additionally, the court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation. The court also dismissed claims for conspiracy to defraud and "fraud on the market" under federal law and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Defendant Carr-Locke's claims were also dismissed due to failure of service. The request for leave to replead was denied as futile.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsLoss CausationMarket ManipulationInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 10b-5PSLRASupplemental Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership D/B/A Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Alfonso Ventura and Maria Ventura

Alfonso and Maria Ventura filed a wrongful foreclosure suit against Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership d/b/a Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. after their homestead was sold due to an unpaid tax lien note. The Venturas alleged the appellants failed to properly account for surplus funds and raised additional claims of fraud, usury, and failure to account. Appellants, despite being served and making a general appearance through a Rule 11 agreement, failed to file an answer and did not appear for trial, leading to a post-appearance default judgment against them for $66,958 plus attorney's fees. Appellants' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Appellants failed to prove their absence was not due to conscious indifference and that the record supported the damages award.

Wrongful ForeclosureDefault JudgmentPost-Appearance DefaultMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseRule 11 AgreementDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureDamages
References
24
Case No. 03-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2012

Brian Edward Vodicka and Steven Benton Aubrey v. Gregory H. Lahr A/K/A Greg Lahr, Both Individually and D/B/A Capital Advantage Peter Barlin Sandra Gunn And CFSAssociates, Inc. D/B/A Creative Financial Solutions

Brian Edward Vodicka and Steven Benton Aubrey suffered significant financial losses from investments in real-estate-backed loans, which they alleged were part of a Ponzi scheme marketed by Gregory H. Lahr, Peter Barlin, Sandra Gunn, and CFS Associates, Inc. They initiated a lawsuit, alleging various causes of action including gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud, and civil conspiracy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the brokerage appellees on the negligence claims, ruling that no duty of care was owed. On appeal, the core issue was whether the brokerage appellees owed a duty of ordinary negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no evidence of such a duty under common law or existing precedent, and rejected attempts to recast other claims as ordinary negligence.

Summary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsDuty of CareSecurities FraudFinancial LossesPonzi SchemeBrokerage LiabilityEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
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. 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
May 05, 2006

Capital Z Financial Services Fund II, L.P. v. Health Net, Inc.

The case concerns four limited partnerships, collectively known as Cap Z, that invested $100 million to finance Superior National Insurance Group's acquisition of workers' compensation insurers (BIG) from Health Net. Cap Z alleged that Health Net misrepresented and concealed critical information regarding BIG's inadequate loss reserves, leading to significant financial losses when both Superior and BIG became insolvent. Initially, the IAS court sustained a breach of contract claim but dismissed fraud and implied covenant claims. On appeal, the court, applying Delaware law as stipulated in the agreements, determined that Cap Z's contractual claims were derivative of Superior's and therefore lacked standing. The appellate court also found the fraud and implied covenant claims to be without merit, even under New York law, citing disclaimers and Cap Z's own due diligence. Consequently, the court dismissed the entire complaint.

Shareholder Derivative ActionBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingChoice of LawCorporate AcquisitionInsolvencyFinancial MisrepresentationInvestment LossStanding to Sue
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08035
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2019

Morrow v. MetLife Invs. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Juan "Jin" Zhou, a financial services representative, from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard two appeals. Appeal No. 1, concerning an original complaint, was dismissed as moot because an amended complaint superseded it. Appeal No. 2 challenged the denial of a motion to dismiss several causes of action in the amended complaint against Zhou. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion to dismiss the first, second, ninth (negligence and gross negligence), sixth (conversion), and eighth (fraud) causes of action against Zhou, citing errors in the lower court's reasoning regarding intentional conduct, lack of control over personal property, and insufficient allegations for fraud.

Appellate ReviewMotion to DismissNegligenceGross NegligenceConversionFraudStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintCauses of Action
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,025 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