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

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & L BIRCHWOOD, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, S & L Birchwood, LLC and S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC, filed a breach of contract action against LFC Capital, Inc., following a dispute over a medical equipment lease. LFC alleged default, and S&L initiated a declaratory judgment action in New York state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court. LFC moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, citing a forum-selection clause in their agreement. The court analyzed the enforceability of the clause, determining it to be mandatory due to language of 'irrevocable submission' to Illinois jurisdiction, despite not explicitly using 'must' or 'may'. Consequently, the court denied LFC's motion to dismiss but granted the request for transfer, concluding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York and that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois was warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Forum selection clauseBreach of contractDiversity jurisdictionTransfer of venueDismissal motionIllinois contract lawNew York jurisdictionMedical equipment leasingMandatory clause interpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1974

Leonardis v. Local 282 Pension Trust Fund

This case involves a plaintiff seeking a lifetime monthly pension of $330.00 from a pension fund. The plaintiff initially filed the action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on November 25, 1974, before it was removed to the Federal District Court on December 12, 1974. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the removal petition of the defendant, Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, and remand the case to the State Supreme Court, or in the alternative, transfer it to the Westbury Part of the Federal Court. The plaintiff argued that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction because it was a breach of contract action and that there was no exclusive federal jurisdiction. However, the court determined it had original federal jurisdiction due to claims arising under the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court found that concurrent jurisdiction with state courts does not defeat the right of removal, thus denying the plaintiff's motion for remand and transfer.

Pension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementRemoval JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActERISATaft-Hartley ActConcurrent JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to Transfer
References
15
Case No. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mortensen v. Wheel Horse Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs commenced a products liability action in New York State Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Defendant improperly removed the case to the Northern District of New York instead of the Southern District. Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Southern District under various statutes, while plaintiffs cross-moved to remand to state court and sought attorney's fees. The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction but that venue was improper. It concluded that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 was not applicable as that section addresses lack of subject matter jurisdiction, not venue. Ultimately, the court granted defendant's motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), denying plaintiffs' motions.

Venue transferSubject matter jurisdictionRemoval of action28 U.S.C. § 163128 U.S.C. § 1406(a)Improper venueProducts liabilityDiversity jurisdictionFederal Courts Improvement Act of 1982Remand
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Board of Higher Education

This case addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by the City University of New York, which was sued by a construction worker for injuries sustained at Hunter College. The defendant argued that the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that as a State entity, it could only be sued in the Court of Claims. The court extensively analyzed the jurisdictional boundaries between the Supreme Court and the Court of Claims, particularly in light of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and the reorganization of CUNY. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the primary claim against the State entity, the judge affirmed the court's power to transfer the main action to the Court of Claims under CPLR 325 (subd [a]). Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, the main action was transferred, and any third-party claims were severed due to the Court of Claims' inability to adjudicate them.

JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionCourt of ClaimsSupreme CourtSovereign ImmunityCase TransferCPLR 325Education LawCity University of New YorkThird-Party Practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2012

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

The Trustee (Irving H. Picard) for the Madoff liquidation seeks to recover $42 million from the Taiwanese Bureau of Labor Insurance (BLI), a subsequent transferee of funds originating from BLMIS. BLI moved to dismiss the Trustee’s complaint on four grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), lack of personal jurisdiction, inability to recover as a subsequent transferee without avoiding initial transfers, and that claims are barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court denied BLI's motion, finding it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over BLI due to BLI's purposeful investment activities in New York-based BLMIS. The Court also ruled that the Trustee can pursue recovery from BLI because the initial transfers are 'avoidable' and the claims are not barred by extraterritoriality, as the statute's focus is on the domestic depletion of the bankruptcy estate.

Bankruptcy LawMadoff Ponzi SchemeForeign Sovereign Immunities ActPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionAvoidance ActionsSubsequent TransfereeExtraterritorialityCommercial Activity ExceptionFraudulent Transfers
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC

Plaintiff Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) liquidation, sought to recover approximately $156 million in avoidable transfers from the BNP Paribas entities (Defendants). The Defendants moved to dismiss the Trustee's proposed Amended Complaint (PAC) on multiple grounds, including improper filing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and statute of limitations. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding a prima facie showing of sufficient minimum contacts. The filing of the PAC was treated as a motion for leave to amend, which was granted in part for original subsequent transfer claims but denied for newly asserted claims due to being time-barred. The Court also found the Trustee failed to plausibly allege the Defendants' subjective knowledge or willful blindness to the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, but noted the Defendants must still prove they gave value for the surviving transfers.

BankruptcyPonzi SchemeFraudulent TransferSecurities Investor Protection ActWillful BlindnessPersonal JurisdictionLeave to AmendStatute of LimitationsSubsequent TransfereesInvestment Advisory
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Stahl

Plaintiffs Daniel Z. Nelson, Lloyd Zeiderman, and Harold Greenberg, former shareholders of NewVest Capital Corporation, brought an action against Rosalie Stahl, Scott G. Savastano, NewVest Capital Corporation, and other entities and individuals, alleging fraud in connection with the assignment of their stock in NewVest and interests in related LLCs. The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with several state law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The Court denied the motions to dismiss for the federal securities law claims related to the transfer of NewVest stock, finding the stock to be a security and the fraud allegations sufficiently particular. However, the Court granted dismissal for claims based on the transfer of LLC interests, concluding that these interests did not qualify as 'securities' under federal law, primarily because the LLC agreements granted members direct managerial authority, failing the Howey test. Supplemental jurisdiction was exercised over the state law claims directly related to the NewVest stock transfer (Second through Fifth Causes of Action) but declined for other, less related state law claims (Sixth through Eleventh Causes of Action), which were dismissed without prejudice. Consequently, specific defendants against whom only these dismissed claims were asserted were also dismissed from the case.

Securities FraudLimited Liability CompanyStock TransferMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionPleading RequirementsRule 10b-5Private Securities Litigation Reform ActSupplemental JurisdictionFraudulent Inducement
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 3,175 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