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. 15-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2015

in Re Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc.

Intellicenter Dallas Investments LLP initiated an arbitration against Forum Studio, Inc. and Clayco, Inc. regarding alleged design and construction defects in an office building project. Intellicenter sought damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud due to insufficient structural design in tilt-wall panels. Forum Studio and Clayco, in turn, filed an application in District Court to stay the arbitration, arguing Intellicenter failed to comply with Texas' "Certificate of Merit" requirements and that its claims were time-barred by contract. The District Court denied the application to stay arbitration and a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, an arbitration panel ruled that Clayco's motion to dismiss based on statutes of limitations was granted, but Forum Studio's similar motion was denied. This appendix supports the Real Party in Interest's response to a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Texas concerning these underlying proceedings.

Construction DefectsArbitrationStatutes of LimitationsCertificate of MeritMandamusContract DisputeDesign-Build ContractStructural EngineeringTilt-Wall PanelsTexas Law
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falik v. Smith

Plaintiff Harold Falik sued defendants David T. Smith and James Moscowitz for breach of an indemnification agreement. The agreement concerned legal expenses Falik incurred in a prior lawsuit, Myron Karr v. Emerson Radio. Defendants sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or a transfer of the case. The court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over Smith in New York, as his contacts did not satisfy CPLR 301 or 302(a)(1) requirements. However, enforcing a forum selection clause and considering Smith's business contacts in New Jersey, the court deemed New Jersey a more appropriate forum. The court ordered the case transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.

Personal JurisdictionForum Selection ClauseIndemnification AgreementTransfer of VenueDiversity ActionNew York Civil Practice LawMinimum ContactsDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteGeneral Jurisdiction
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. A/S EM. Z. SVITZER

This case involves plaintiffs James Lewis Dunn and Ole Pederson, who sustained injuries as divers during the construction of the Great Belt railway tunnel in Denmark. They initiated legal action in Harris County, Texas, against multiple entities including various Kiewit companies, Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG, Campenon Bernard SGE, SOGEA, Monberg and Thorsen A/S, and the MT Group. Defendants sought dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, while plaintiffs requested remand to state court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to prioritize the remand issue and granted the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction for most defendants, citing insufficient minimum contacts with Texas. The motion by MFS Network Technologies for a forum non conveniens dismissal was conditionally granted, with Denmark deemed an adequate and appropriate alternative forum for the dispute.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensCorporate Veil PiercingJoint Venture LiabilityInternational JurisdictionForeign DefendantsMaritime AccidentDanish LawMinimum ContactsDue Process
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1983

Complaint of Geophysical Service, Inc.

This case involves petitioners Geophysical Service, Inc. (GSI) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following the sinking of their chartered vessel, M/V ARCTIC EXPLORER, in Canadian territorial waters, resulting in 13 deaths. The petitioners also moved to dismiss the consolidated claims based on forum non conveniens. The Court, presided over by District McDonald, first determined that Canadian substantive law, particularly the Canadian Shipping Act, governed the controversy. Applying the factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Court granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, finding Canada to be the more appropriate forum due to substantial contacts and interests. The dismissal was conditioned on GSI and TI submitting to Canadian jurisdiction, waiving any statute of limitation defense, and agreeing to satisfy any judgment rendered by a Canadian court.

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeha v. Arabian American Oil Co.

This case concerns a medical malpractice claim filed by Raja and Selwa Jeha, Lebanese citizens, against Aramco in the Southern District of Texas. Mrs. Jeha received medical treatment from Aramco doctors in Saudi Arabia, where a breast lump was allegedly misdiagnosed, leading to a later cancer diagnosis in Lebanon. Aramco filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that Saudi Arabia or Lebanon were more appropriate jurisdictions. The court, presided over by Judge Hughes, agreed, finding both foreign forums available and adequate, and that the case had no significant connection to Texas or the United States. The court emphasized the difficulty of securing evidence and applying foreign law in an American court, ultimately dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, conditioned on Aramco's waiver of certain defenses in Lebanon.

Forum Non ConveniensMedical MalpracticeInternational JurisdictionSaudi LawLebanese LawForeign NationalDismissal without PrejudicePrivate Interest FactorsPublic Interest FactorsChoice of Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2007

Kuwaiti Engineering Group v. Consortium of International Consultants, LLC

The case involved a Kuwaiti corporation, as plaintiff, seeking to enforce a contract and alleging tortious interference with its contract rights against defendants Safege Consulting Engineers (French) and Consortium of International Consultants, LLC (Delaware). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found New York an inconvenient forum because the consulting work was primarily performed in Kuwait, negotiations were only partly in New York, and the alleged interference occurred outside New York. The decision was conditioned upon the defendants' consent to jurisdiction in Kuwait and France. The court affirmed the dismissal but denied Safege's request for sanctions, deeming the plaintiff's appeal not frivolous.

forum non conveniensKuwaitFrancecontract disputetortious interferenceinternational lawjurisdictiondismissalappellate courtNew York Supreme Court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 670 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