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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. ADJ1775896 (RDG 0101688), ADJ2010679 (RDG 0104042)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

RICHARD SEILER vs. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Richard Seiler, petitioned to recuse the judge, alleging prejudice and improper rulings on evidence and medical treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the applicant's filings and the judge's report. The WCAB denied the disqualification petition, finding no evidence of bias. The applicant will have the opportunity to raise these issues at trial and, if necessary, file a petition for reconsideration.

Recusal petitionJudge JonesLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Chiropractic QMEExclusion of evidencePrescribing physicianHormone replacementMandatory settlement conferencePetition for reconsideration
References
0
Case No. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Caballero

Luis Gonzalez, an employee, sued John Caballero, a driver for New England Motor Freight Inc. (NEMF), and NEMF for negligence after being injured while moving heavy display racks that Caballero had left on the street. Caballero had refused to assist Gonzalez, who was the only hospital employee on duty. NEMF moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending they owed Gonzalez no duty of care. The court granted NEMF's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It concluded that NEMF did not owe a duty of care to Gonzalez, as Caballero's mere inaction did not create such a duty, and Gonzalez's injuries were not foreseeable.

NegligenceDuty of careJudgment on the pleadingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Common lawContractual dutyForeseeabilityPersonal injuryDelivery serviceThird-party beneficiary
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2016

Koehler v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The case involves plaintiff Robert Koehler's Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim against his employer, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), alleging negligence for injuries sustained. The MTA moved to dismiss, arguing that the heightened pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly apply to FELA actions. The Court concurred, affirming that these standards govern all civil actions, thereby rejecting the plaintiff's argument for a lower pleading threshold in FELA cases. Consequently, the Court found that Koehler's complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish negligence, particularly regarding causation and foreseeability of injury. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted without prejudice, and the plaintiff's procedurally improper request to amend was denied, though with leave to refile a formal motion.

FELANegligenceMotion to DismissPleading StandardsIqbalTwomblyFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Rule 8Eastern District of New YorkSummary Judgment
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sampaio v. Atlantic-Heydt, LLC

Gilmar Sampaio, a mason, sustained a severe eye injury at a construction site in midtown Manhattan when an oxygen tank exploded due to an unknown person's prank. He filed a negligence action against four companies, JDP Mechanical, Inc., Pavarini Construction Co., Inc., Atlantic-Heydt, LLC, and Solow Building Company, L.L.C., alleging their failure to prevent the incident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Sampaio had not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding a breached duty of care or negligence. The court ultimately concluded that the bizarre prank was not a foreseeable hazard and that the defendants did not owe Sampaio a legal duty to implement more protective measures, such as locking tanks away or installing video surveillance. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice.

NegligenceConstruction AccidentEye InjuryOxygen Tank ExplosionSummary JudgmentForeseeability of RiskDuty of CareFederal RegulationsState RegulationsProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. 09-CV-8140 (KMK)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

In Re Dayton

Plaintiffs Michael Dayton and Barbara Nieves, individually and as guardian for their five infant children, brought action against the City of Middletown, its police officers, Orange County, and the Department of Social Services Orange County (DSS) alleging federal and state law violations. The claims stemmed from a November 2008 incident involving an alleged attack by a felon and subsequent police actions, followed by Family Court proceedings where neglect findings were entered against the parents. The court granted DSS's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding it not a suable entity. Motions to dismiss the federal § 1983 Monell claims against Middletown and Orange County were granted without prejudice due to insufficient pleading of a municipal policy. State law claims against Orange County were dismissed without prejudice due to untimely notice of claim for adult plaintiffs, with infant claims requiring state court application. Claims arising from the Family Court's neglect finding and protective order were dismissed with prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but other allegations regarding Orange County's conduct during Family Court proceedings survived. The Middletown Officers' motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice, citing insufficient factual inconsistencies for dismissal prior to discovery. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Civil Rights ViolationsFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentRooker-Feldman doctrineMonell claimFailure to Train
References
98
Showing 1-10 of 2,927 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