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. ADJ9085187
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

ESTES BANKS vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS, OAKLAND RAIDERS, FREMONT INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision regarding applicant Estes Banks and defendants Cincinnati Bengals, Oakland Raiders, and Fremont Indemnity. The Board determined that reconsideration was necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues involved. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future filings related to this petition for reconsideration must be directed to the Office of the Commissioners.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPermissibly SelfInsuredCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONliquidationstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionfurther proceedingsElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1990

UBAF Arab American Bank v. Sanchez

Plaintiff UBAF Arab American Bank sued its former vice-president, Sanchez, for $11.5 million due to unauthorized foreign exchange transactions and falsified bank records. Plaintiff sought discovery of Sanchez's credit card and bank records, which was initially denied by protective orders citing privacy. After obtaining some Citibank records, plaintiff moved to reargue and renew these orders. The Supreme Court modified the previous orders, granting plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew. Consequently, protective orders were vacated regarding Sanchez's credit card records and a Citibank deposition, allowing further discovery, but affirmed the protective order concerning the Royce Hotel records. The court emphasized that discovery should facilitate proving a case and is not contingent on prior proof of financial benefit.

DiscoveryProtective OrderForeign ExchangeFalsifying RecordsBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentFraudBank RecordsCredit Card RecordsNon-party Deposition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In re Nemko, Inc.)

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

Darwish Auto Group, LLC v. TD Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs Darwish Auto Group, LLC and Darwish General Corp. commenced an action against TD Bank, N.A. and Walid Darwish, alleging that Walid Darwish unilaterally modified bank account access for various users, which TD Bank subsequently refused to reverse without his individual approval. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court granted the preliminary injunction and later denied Walid Darwish's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed Supreme Court's decisions to grant the preliminary injunction and deny the motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs established a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a favorable balance of equities. However, the Appellate Division modified the order concerning the preliminary injunction by reversing the sum of the undertaking, remitting the matter to Supreme Court to determine an appropriate amount that bears a rational relation to potential damages Walid Darwish could suffer.

Preliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractBanking DisputesCorporate GovernanceManagement AuthorityShareholder DisputesAppellate ProcedureUndertaking Requirements
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC

This order addresses a request from certain plaintiffs to vacate a prior decision in Litle v. Arab Bank (2007) that dismissed their claims based on timeliness. The plaintiffs' request is grounded in recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq.), enacted in January 2013, which extended the statute of limitations to ten years and explicitly apply retroactively to pending civil actions. The defendant, Arab Bank, opposed the application, arguing against retroactive application on Due Process grounds, citing William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. However, the court rejected this argument, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Landgraf v. USI Film Products and International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., which affirmed Congress's constitutional authority to provide for retroactive application of extended limitations periods. Consequently, the court vacated the Litle Opinion to the extent it dismissed certain plaintiffs' claims as time-barred, including those of Shivi Keller, Chayim Brovender, and Mattityahu Zachariash, and restored these claims for further proceedings.

Anti-Terrorism ActStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationDue ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEastern District of New YorkCivil ActionVacated DecisionClaim RestorationAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2000

Tevdorachvili v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Plaintiff Nikolai Tevdorachvili sued Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging unauthorized wire transfers amounting to $157,000 from his checking account in August 1998, claiming forgery and lack of knowledge. He brought suit against Chase for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of New York Banking Law § 676, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligence, and gross negligence. Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court denied Chase's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for insufficiency of service, finding plaintiff to be an alien for diversity jurisdiction and exercising discretion to waive the 120-day service rule. However, the court granted Chase's motion to dismiss all causes of action except for the breach of contract claim, finding no independent basis for the other claims under New York law.

Wire Transfer FraudBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyNew York Banking LawConsequential DamagesDeclaratory Judgment
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 578 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