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

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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2006

Smolik v. Turner Construction Co.

The plaintiff, a Kings County resident, sustained injuries at a New Jersey construction site while working for a New Jersey employer. Following initial treatment and a New Jersey workers' compensation claim, the plaintiff initiated a personal injury action in New York against Turner Construction Company and Metrovest Equities, Inc., both New York corporations with operations in New Jersey. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing New York was an inconvenient forum. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted these motions, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no improvident exercise of discretion given the lack of substantial nexus to New York.

Personal InjuryForum Non ConveniensDismissalAppealNew York CourtsNew Jersey SitusJurisdictionCPLR 327DamagesConstruction Site
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Business MacHines Corp. v. HARRYSSON

International Business Machines (IBM) filed suit against former senior executive Anders Harrysson to enforce a forfeiture clause related to his incentive stock options. Harrysson, a Swedish national, left IBM and, within six months of exercising his options, began working for a competitor, Sun Microsystems. IBM sought to reclaim the gains from his stock options. Harrysson moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that a U.S. judgment would not be enforceable in Sweden, where all his assets are located. The court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that Harrysson had previously agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in New York courts and that IBM was willing to accept the risk of enforceability. The court noted that the balance of public and private interest factors favored retaining U.S. jurisdiction, especially given the potential for Harrysson to acquire U.S. assets in the future.

Stock OptionsForfeiture ClauseForum Non ConveniensJurisdictionContract EnforcementEmployment AgreementRestrictive CovenantInternational DisputeChoice of ForumExecutive Compensation
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 309 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