Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. VNO 0521700

Regular

Jul 09, 2008

KEITH CHAGNON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case addresses whether attorney's fees can be deducted from Industrial Disability Leave (IDL) benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to award fees directly against IDL but can order payment by the employer. Ultimately, the Board ordered the employer to pay attorney's fees forthwith, allowing credit against future temporary or permanent disability indemnity.

Industrial Disability Leave (IDL)Government Code section 19871Attorney's feesTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Permanent Disability (PD)Labor Code section 4903(a)Labor Code section 4909Credit against future benefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Male D.

The court addressed a motion by petitioning adoptive parents to dispense with the appearance of the child’s natural parents in a private-placement adoption proceeding. The motion was denied due to concerns regarding whether the natural parents' extrajudicial consents were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. The court highlighted the absence of independent legal advice for the natural parents and the conflict of interest with the adoptive parents' attorney acknowledging consents. Furthermore, the court found non-compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, as the child was brought from Connecticut to New York without proper approval. The petitioners were directed to obtain the natural parents' testimony and to seek Compact approval forthwith.

Private AdoptionParental ConsentDue ProcessInterstate CompactAdoption LawNew York LawConnecticut ResidentsLegal RepresentationConflict of InterestJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

De Lury v. Beame

This case addresses the interpretation of Civil Service Law, § 210 (the Taylor Law), concerning the timing of salary deductions for public employees who engage in a strike. Specifically, it clarifies when a chief executive officer's "determination" of a strike and its participants is considered final, triggering the 30- to 90-day window for payroll deductions. The dispute arose when 370 sanitation workers were served notice of Taylor Law violations significantly later than an initial determination date. The lower courts ruled the deductions time-barred, considering the initial determination date as the start of the 90-day period. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the determination is not final for individual employees until they are identified by name or provided with notice of their violation. The Court emphasized that notice must be given "forthwith" after identification of individual strikers.

Taylor LawPublic EmployeesStrike PenaltiesPayroll DeductionsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of NoticeChief Executive Officer DeterminationCivil Service LawSanitation WorkersNew York

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Tobias Holdings, Inc. v. Bank United Corp.

Plaintiff has brought a federal securities fraud action alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state common law claims for fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy, and tortious interference, with federal jurisdiction over the state claims based on diversity of citizenship. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The central legal question is whether the automatic stay of discovery provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which applies to federal securities claims, also stays discovery for plaintiff's non-fraud state law claims when jurisdiction over such claims is based on diversity. The court, after examining statutory construction and legislative history, concludes that an unduly broad application of the PSLRA's automatic stay would penalize plaintiffs and encourage inefficient duplication of effort by forcing separate state court actions for common law claims. Therefore, the court held that the PSLRA cannot prohibit discovery on non-fraud common law claims arising under diversity jurisdiction, and discovery relating to these claims shall proceed forthwith.

Securities Litigation Reform ActDiscovery StayDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsSecurities FraudBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceStatutory InterpretationJudicial Efficiency

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Buenaver v. Vasquez

Petitioner German Mussini Buenaver (Father) filed an action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention against Maria Munoz Yasquez (Mother) seeking the return of their child, R.V.B., from New York to Colombia. The parents, divorced in Colombia, shared parental rights, with the Mother having custody and personal care, and the Father having visitation rights; Colombian law required the Father's consent for the child to leave the country. The Mother brought the child to New York in December 2011 with the Father's temporary consent but then wrongfully retained the child. The Father made efforts to locate the child and filed a petition in the U.S. District Court in August 2013. The Court found that the Father had 'rights of custody' under the Hague Convention, and the Mother's retention was wrongful. The Court rejected the Mother's affirmative defenses, finding the child was not 'well-settled' due to frequent moves, multiple schools, the Mother's unstable employment, and illegal immigration status. It also found no 'grave risk of harm' and that the 8-year-old child's objection to returning lacked sufficient maturity to be the sole basis for denying the petition. Consequently, the Petitioner's petition was granted, and the child was ordered to be returned to Colombia forthwith.

International Child Abduction Remedies ActHague ConventionChild AbductionParental RightsCustody RightsWrongful RetentionHabitual ResidenceWell-Settled DefenseGrave Risk of HarmChild's Objection

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

KEITH CHAGNON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In re Male D.

Private AdoptionParental ConsentDue ProcessInterstate CompactAdoption LawNew York LawConnecticut ResidentsLegal RepresentationConflict of InterestJudicial Review

De Lury v. Beame

Taylor LawPublic EmployeesStrike PenaltiesPayroll DeductionsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of NoticeChief Executive Officer DeterminationCivil Service LawSanitation WorkersNew York

Tobias Holdings, Inc. v. Bank United Corp.

Buenaver v. Vasquez

International Child Abduction Remedies ActHague ConventionChild AbductionParental RightsCustody RightsWrongful RetentionHabitual ResidenceWell-Settled DefenseGrave Risk of HarmChild's Objection