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. 01-18-00409-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

in Re Friede & Goldman, LLC F/K/A FGL Buyer, LLC D/B/A Friede & Goldman, Ltd.

Relators Friede & Goldman, LLC (FGL) and the ABS Entities sought a writ of mandamus from the First District of Texas Court of Appeals to compel a trial court to dismiss an underlying personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit based on forum non conveniens. The underlying case involved 44 plaintiffs, mostly Mexican citizens, injured in an offshore oil rig incident in Mexico, alleging defective design by Houston-based FGL and negligent inspection by ABS. The appellate court affirmed that Mexico was an available and adequate alternative forum. However, it found a mixed evidentiary record regarding substantial injustice to the relators and the balance of private and public interests, noting that relevant evidence and witnesses were scattered across Mexico, China, Germany, and Houston. Consequently, the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

MandamusForum Non ConveniensTexas Court of AppealsJurisdictional DisputeChoice of ForumInternational LawOil Rig IncidentPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathMexican Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

The U.S. Magistrate Judge denied Goldman Sachs' motion to stay a putative class action for gender discrimination and compel individual arbitration for plaintiff Lisa Parisi. The plaintiffs, including Parisi, alleged systematic gender discrimination under Title VII and New York City Human Rights Law. While Parisi's employment agreement contained an arbitration clause, the court found that her "pattern or practice" discrimination claim could only be effectively pursued as a class action. Compelling individual arbitration would prevent the vindication of her substantive statutory rights, rendering the class action waiver unenforceable.

Gender DiscriminationClass ActionArbitration AgreementTitle VIIEmployment LawStatutory RightsPattern or Practice ClaimNew York City Human Rights LawContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration Act
References
74
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Landesbank Baden-Württemberg sued Goldman Sachs & Co. and TCW Asset Management Company for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, arising from the devaluation of a mortgage-backed Credit Default Obligation (CDO) called Davis Square Funding VI. Landesbank alleged that Goldman concealed the poor quality of underlying mortgages and used fraudulently obtained credit ratings, while TCW failed to conduct proper due diligence. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. It found that Landesbank failed to plead fraud with particularity, establish a special relationship for negligent misrepresentation in an arm's-length transaction, or support an unjust enrichment claim given the existence of a valid contract.

Motion to DismissCommon Law FraudNegligent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentMortgage-Backed SecuritiesCredit Default Obligation (CDO)Securities FraudPleading RequirementsJustifiable RelianceArm's-Length Transaction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Bank of New York (In Re Goldman)

Cecilia R. Goldman, a Chapter 7 debtor, sought to discharge her student loan obligation from The Bank of New York, guaranteed by NYSHESC, claiming undue hardship due to health issues and related medical expenses. NYSHESC objected, stating that the five-year repayment period had not elapsed and that repayment would not cause undue hardship. The court determined that despite her medical condition, Goldman was employed with a $17,000 annual salary, was single, had no dependents, and had discharged over $13,000 in other debts. The court concluded that Goldman failed to prove the 'hopelessness or exceptional circumstances' necessary for an undue hardship finding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), and consequently, her complaint was dismissed.

Student LoanBankruptcyUndue HardshipChapter 7DischargeabilityMedical ConditionFinancial HardshipGuaranteed LoanFederal Bankruptcy CodeDebtor-Creditor Law
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2011

Dwyer v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Dwyer, a construction worker, filed a slip-and-fall action against Goldman Sachs Headquarters LLC (building owner) and Structure Tone, Inc. (general contractor) for injuries sustained while working at a construction site. Dwyer asserted claims under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. Defendants brought a third-party action for contractual indemnification against OH & M Electrical Corp., Dwyer's employer. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 240(1) claims, Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim against OH & M. For Labor Law § 241(6) claims, summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, allowing claims based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) and (e)(2) to proceed.

Slip-and-FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkplace SafetyNew YorkGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityHazardous Opening
References
33
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01315 [236 AD3d 465]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2025

Goldman v. Vanguard Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Valerie Goldman was struck by a fence adjacent to a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion to amend the bill of particulars to include violations of Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (a) (1)-(3) and (b) (1) (i), citing factual inconsistencies regarding the cause of the fence's movement. However, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.33 (d) (1), deeming it inapplicable.

Construction AccidentPedestrian InjurySummary Judgment MotionBill of Particulars AmendmentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionFactual DisputesNegligence ClaimWorksite SafetyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ7136047
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

TARA GELLMAN vs. GOLDMAN, MAGDALIN, & KRIKES, LLP, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The applicant, an attorney, sought compensation for an injury sustained during her commute, arguing it fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming" rule. The Board found that the applicant failed to prove her activities were extraordinary or undertaken for the employer's benefit, as she routinely worked from home and carried files. Therefore, the injury was deemed to have occurred during a non-compensable commute.

AOE/COEgoing and coming rulespecial mission exceptiondual purpose exceptionpetition for reconsiderationadministrative law judgeWCJinjurycompensablecommute
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03712 [150 AD3d 453]
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2017

Kebe v. Greenpoint-Goldman Corp.

Plaintiff Masso Kebe was granted summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Greenpoint-Goldman Corp. et al. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. Plaintiff provided prima facie evidence that the ladder he was using at a construction site wobbled, was missing two rubber feet, and ultimately spun and fell, causing his injury. Defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact, as their superintendent's testimony was speculative regarding the ladder's post-fall position, and a coworker's affidavit did not address the critical circumstances of the accident. The court distinguished this case from others where the cause of the fall was disputed, concluding that the plaintiff effectively demonstrated a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentConstruction site safetyPrima facie caseAppellate reviewFall from heightSafety device failureWorker injuryWobbling ladder
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 52 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