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

Sybedon Corp. v. Mendell

Plaintiff Sybedon Corporation brought a lawsuit against Jeffrey B. Mendell and JBM Realty Capital Corp., alleging a fraudulent scheme involving mail and wire fraud, and several common law claims arising from a breach of an employment agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of a "pattern of racketeering activity" under the RICO statute. The court, presided over by District Judge Haight, agreed that the alleged acts constituted a single fraudulent scheme, not a continuous pattern, and thus failed to establish a viable civil RICO claim. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of all associated state and common law claims.

RICORacketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudCivil RemediesPattern of RacketeeringSubject Matter JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudulent SchemeDismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in Southwest Pump Company, Incorporated, brought a derivative federal claim and pendent state claims against InterFirst Bank Dallas, N.A., Southwest, and eleven individuals. The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy by defendants, led by Sally R. Estes, to gain control of Southwest through a fraudulent stock scheme involving the Risser shares, causing the corporation to purchase shares at below market value and then resell them to Estes, also at a significantly undervalued price. The court considered motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, focusing on the equitable doctrine of in pari delicto. The court found Southwest equally at fault in the fraudulent scheme, as it was an essential participant in the transactions. Consequently, the court applied the in pari delicto defense, dismissing the federal securities claim with prejudice and the pendent state claims without prejudice due to lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Securities fraudDerivative actionMinority shareholderIn pari delictoMotion to dismissFederal securities lawsRule 10b-5Stock transactionsCorporate conspiracyPendent jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uptown Health Care Management, Inc.

Plaintiffs GEICO allege a scheme where defendants, including Uptown Health Care Management d/b/a East Tremont, Hisham Elzanaty, Alan Goldenberg, Dr. Hisham Ahmed, and Dr. Jadwiga Pawlowski, fraudulently billed GEICO for millions in services. GEICO contends East Tremont was ineligible for reimbursement under New York's no-fault insurance laws, operating without a legitimate medical director, violating its operating certificate, and paying kickbacks for referrals. The complaint raises six causes of action, including declaratory judgment, RICO violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1962(d)), common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for Burford abstention and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing GEICO's claims would invalidate a DOH license and interfere with state oversight. Citing the similar Allstate Ins. v. Elzanaty action, the court denied defendants' motions, affirming that insurers can challenge fraudulent licensing and conduct under RICO and fraud claims, even if state authorities have approved the facility. The court concluded that such claims do not disrupt New York's regulatory scheme and need not be raised exclusively with the DOH or through an Article 78 proceeding.

Insurance FraudNo-Fault InsuranceRICO ActMedical LicensingHealthcare FraudAbstention DoctrineRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionArticle 28 FacilitiesKickbacks

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute over wage payments to undocumented alien workers employed by Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. on public works projects. The plaintiffs, including Adeline Carpió and Jose Luis Zamora, sued Kel-Tech and its sureties, Reliance Insurance Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, for unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, alleging a money-laundering scheme by Kel-Tech. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' use of fraudulent documents to obtain employment barred their claims, and also moved to dismiss claims related to the ES. 24 project. The court had previously dismissed claims for ES. 24 and declined to enforce releases from two plaintiffs. This decision denies defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that New York's Labor Law, particularly Section 220, is not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) concerning the payment of earned wages to undocumented workers. The court emphasizes public policy aims to ensure fair wages for all workers and identifies unresolved factual disputes regarding both plaintiffs' alleged fraudulent conduct and Kel-Tech's own compliance with IRCA and its alleged 'unclean hands' in the wage payment scheme. The court also denied dismissal of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims related to William Taft High School.

undocumented workersprevailing wageLabor Law Section 220Immigration Reform and Control Actsummary judgmentfraudulent documentationquantum meruitunjust enrichmentpublic works contractswage dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Reuters America, Inc. v. Sharp

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that imposes taxes on information services while exempting newspapers. Reuters, an electronic news service provider, argued that this tax scheme violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes for its services, which Reuters paid under protest before filing a lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of the State, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Chief Justice. The court held that the tax scheme was constitutionally applied to Reuters, stating it did not suppress ideas or viewpoints, was a generally applicable sales tax, and did not unfairly target a small group of the press. Furthermore, the court determined that the newspaper exemption was based on format distinctions, not content, and was rationally related to the legitimate state interests of promoting literacy and administrative convenience.

Constitutional LawTax LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPress FreedomInformation ServicesNewspaper ExemptionSales TaxTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc.

The plaintiffs, Lamar Bigsby, Jr. and Karla Freeland, initiated a putative class action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) through mail and wire fraud, alongside related state law claims, against Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. and various John Doe defendants. They accused Barclays, their mortgage loan servicer, of fraudulently overcharging borrowers via two schemes: a 'fee-shifting scheme' where administrative fees were disguised as attorneys' fees, and a 'related mortgages scheme' involving inflated costs for borrowers with multiple mortgages. Barclays moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy claims due to insufficient pleading of fraud, but retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudClass Action Fairness ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentConversionConstructive Trust

References

Case No. 02-16-00128-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 21, 2016

in Re Midwestern Cattle Marketing, LLC

Midwestern Cattle Marketing, LLC (Relator/Plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit against Tony E. Lyon d/b/a Lyon Farms, Owen Lyon, and Monna Lyon (Defendants) to recover funds lost due to an alleged fraudulent cattle-buying scheme, involving a $5 million bounced check and $3.7 million in unauthorized checks. Northwest Cattle Feeders, L.L.C. and Riley Livestock, Inc. (Intervenors) sought to join the suit, claiming they were also victims of the same scheme and seeking $800,000 in damages related to cattle. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the intervention, arguing lack of justiciable interest, potential multiplication of issues, and non-essential nature of the intervention, with an alternative request for severance. Intervenors countered that their claims were intrinsically linked to the main lawsuit, involved identical parties and a similar scheme, and that intervention would enhance judicial efficiency and protect their interest in seized cattle. The Court, presided over by Judge John Fostel, ultimately denied Plaintiff's motion to strike the intervention and the alternative motion to sever.

FraudCattle SchemeInterventionMotion to StrikeSeveranceAgencyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractMandamus

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 10, 2002

Wil-Roye Investment Co. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

This case involves an appeal by Wil-Roye Investment Co. II and Renewable Investments (Appellants) against Washington Mutual Bank, affirming a take-nothing judgment from a bench trial. Appellants suffered significant financial losses from a factoring business due to fraudulent invoices generated by Key Commercial Investments, Inc. (KCI) and Key Funding Group (KFG), who acted as their agents. Appellants sued Washington Mutual Bank (formerly MAB), alleging common law fraud, conspiracy, and negligence, specifically citing a negligent misrepresentation by MAB's president, John Grist, regarding a factoring client, Riley Drilling Company. The trial court found Grist's representation negligent but not fraudulent, and crucially, determined that Appellants' losses were primarily caused by the internal fraudulent scheme within their factoring business and their agents' negligence, not by the bank. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, addressing issues related to summary judgment denial, scheduling order modifications, adverse inferences from Fifth Amendment assertions, and the lack of a special relationship or justifiable reliance on MAB's statements.

Factoring BusinessNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent InvoicesAgency RelationshipFifth Amendment PrivilegeSummary Judgment DenialScheduling Order ModificationSpecial Relationship DoctrineJustifiable RelianceCausation (Legal)

References

Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court

References

Case No. Dkt. Nos. 817, 822

Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Rutigliano

Defendants Joseph Rutigliano and Peter Lesniewski filed motions for a new trial or, in the alternative, resentencing, based on alleged newly discovered evidence. They were previously convicted for their involvement in a widespread scheme to fraudulently obtain disability benefits from the United States Railroad Retirement Board. The new evidence pertained to the reinstatement of a significant number of disability pensions that the Government had considered fraudulent. The Court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial, finding that the Government had presented overwhelming evidence of their guilt. However, the Court ordered a hearing to address the defendants' sentences, specifically regarding the calculation of loss suffered by the Long Island Railroad, in light of the newly discovered evidence.

Criminal ProcedureNew Trial MotionResentencing MotionNewly Discovered EvidenceFraudDisability Benefits FraudRailroad Retirement Board (RRB)Mail FraudWire FraudHealth Care Fraud

References

Showing 1-10 of 771 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

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

Sybedon Corp. v. Mendell

RICORacketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudCivil RemediesPattern of RacketeeringSubject Matter JurisdictionBreach of ContractFraudulent SchemeDismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A.

Securities fraudDerivative actionMinority shareholderIn pari delictoMotion to dismissFederal securities lawsRule 10b-5Stock transactionsCorporate conspiracyPendent jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uptown Health Care Management, Inc.

Insurance FraudNo-Fault InsuranceRICO ActMedical LicensingHealthcare FraudAbstention DoctrineRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionArticle 28 FacilitiesKickbacks

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

undocumented workersprevailing wageLabor Law Section 220Immigration Reform and Control Actsummary judgmentfraudulent documentationquantum meruitunjust enrichmentpublic works contractswage dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Reuters America, Inc. v. Sharp

Constitutional LawTax LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPress FreedomInformation ServicesNewspaper ExemptionSales TaxTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudClass Action Fairness ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentConversionConstructive Trust

References

Case No. 02-16-00128-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 21, 2016

in Re Midwestern Cattle Marketing, LLC

FraudCattle SchemeInterventionMotion to StrikeSeveranceAgencyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractMandamus

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 10, 2002

Wil-Roye Investment Co. v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

References

Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court

References

Case No. Dkt. Nos. 817, 822

Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Rutigliano

Criminal ProcedureNew Trial MotionResentencing MotionNewly Discovered EvidenceFraudDisability Benefits FraudRailroad Retirement Board (RRB)Mail FraudWire FraudHealth Care Fraud

References

Showing 1-10 of 771 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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