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

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blanchard v. Katz

The case involves plaintiffs' common law fraud and Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants Harrison M. Lasky, Lon B. Rubin, and Aron B. Katz. Plaintiffs invested in a limited partnership, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading financial projections by overstating revenues and understating expenses, specifically regarding repair costs for the roof and air conditioning, and marketing/vacancy expenses. The initial complaint was dismissed for failing to plead fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The amended complaint also failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support the defendants' knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations, despite specifying some details. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations were conclusory and lacked a minimum factual basis for scienter. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice was granted, including the federal securities fraud claim and the state law claims due to a lack of pendent jurisdiction.

FraudSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Pleading ParticularityFed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Motion to DismissInsufficient AllegationsScienterLimited PartnershipFinancial Projections
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nevitsky v. Manufacturers Hanover Brokerage Services

Audrey Nevitsky filed a non-diversity action against Manufacturers Hanover Brokerage Services (MHBS) and Manufacturers Hanover Trust (MHT), alleging securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, civil RICO, and pendent state law claims including common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff claimed MHBS provided erroneous account balance information, leading to a forced liquidation of her portfolio and refusal to execute trades, causing substantial losses. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a cause of action and insufficient pleading of fraud, and the state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Edward Weinfeld, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims, finding that most allegations involved unconsummated sales and causation was not established for the forced liquidation. The civil RICO claim was also dismissed due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts (mail/wire fraud) with particularity and an improper allegation of an "enterprise," though the plaintiff was granted leave to amend this claim within 30 days. Consequently, the pendent state law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Securities FraudRICOCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissPendent JurisdictionInvestment AccountsBrokerage ServicesRule 10b-5Fraud PleadingCausation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itskov v. New York Fertility Institute, Inc.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Dr. Kaleed Sultan, asserting claims of breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff alleged the doctor failed to fulfill an agreement to perform embryo implantation services connected to a surrogate parenting contract, after having retrieved her embryos, claiming the procedure was illegal. Dr. Sultan sought to dismiss both causes of action for failure to state a claim. The court denied the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, determining the contract was not against public policy and valid allegations were made. However, the fraud claim was dismissed as it merely reiterated the contractual dispute without presenting independent fraud allegations.

Breach of ContractFraudMedical ServicesIn Vitro FertilizationSurrogate Parenting ContractPublic PolicyStatute of FraudsMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ping Chen ex rel. United States v. EMSL Analytical, Inc.

Plaintiff Ping Chen, a former lab director, brought a False Claims Act action against EMSL Analytical, Inc. and several air monitoring companies. He alleged that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the government by submitting "fake" air samples or "false" testing reports related to asbestos abatement projects and then billing for these fraudulent services. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were barred by the FCA's public disclosure provision and that the plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity. The Court granted the dismissal, finding that the alleged fraud was substantially similar to information already publicly disclosed through prior government prosecutions (CES and Todaro) and that Chen was not an "original source" of new information. The Court also determined that the complaint lacked the necessary particularity for fraud allegations and denied the defendants' motions for attorneys' fees.

Asbestos FraudFalse Claims ActQui Tam ActionPublic Disclosure BarRule 9(b) Pleading StandardLack of ParticularityEnvironmental Testing IndustryAir MonitoringGovernment Contracting FraudFraudulent Billing
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crummere v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.

Marie Crummere sued Michael Brown, Frank Caverretta, Jackie Johnston, Smith Barney, and Merrill Lynch for securities fraud, alleging Brown diverted her investment funds intended for a Smith Barney account into an account he controlled at Merrill Lynch, held in Johnston's name, and managed by Caverretta. She claimed violations of federal securities laws and state laws. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Crummere's federal securities claims, finding that her allegations of fraud lacked the necessary "in connection with" a purchase or sale of a security as required by the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The court reasoned that the alleged fraud was primarily a common law conversion of funds, not directly related to specific securities transactions. While declining to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state claims, the court granted leave for Crummere to amend her complaint to add a RICO claim.

Securities FraudInvestment FraudBroker MisconductRule 10b-5Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionConversion of FundsBrokerage Account
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 8,821 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