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. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 02-09-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2011

Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, POP Restaurants, LLC, Golden Restaurants, Inc., Firebrand Properties, LP, Corral Group, LP, Kansas Corral, LLC, Sunny Corral Management, LLC, Guillermo Perales, Frys Management, LLC v. Jessica Polley

This is an appeal from a default judgment against Appellants (Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, and others) and in favor of Appellee Jessica Polley. Polley had previously sued Metro Restaurants, LLC for sexual assault by an employee. In a later lawsuit, Polley sued the Appellants, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for Metro Restaurants' negligence and engaged in fraudulent transfers to prevent her from collecting a 2007 judgment against Metro Restaurants. Appellants appeal the default judgment on several grounds, including improper service, insufficient pleading, lack of evidence, and lack of notice for the default proceeding. They also challenge the denial of their motion for new trial, citing a calendaring mistake and a belief that a bankruptcy stay applied. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Appellants judicially admitted proper service, Polley's pleading was sufficient, and Appellants' excuses for not filing an answer were not credible.

Default judgmentAppealService of processMeritorious defenseCraddock factorsJudicial admissionNegligenceJoint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayCalendaring error
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 03-07-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. D/B/A or F/D/B/A Austin's Pizza v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Appellant Restaurant Enterprises, L.P. (Austin's Pizza) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Travelers Indemnity Co. The core dispute revolved around whether Restaurant owed Travelers insurance premiums for more than the initial four stores, as Travelers claimed coverage for all of Restaurant's locations. The trial court had granted summary judgment to Travelers, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding that Travelers failed to demonstrate the absence of material fact issues regarding other insurance coverage held by Restaurant during the relevant period. The court also deemed Travelers' supporting affidavit conclusory and lacking factual basis due to the absence of attached policy documents. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the trial court's judgment erroneously purported to dispose of all claims, as Restaurant's counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA violations were not addressed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary judgmentInsurance coverage disputeSworn accountBreach of contractNegligent misrepresentationFraudDTPA violationsAppellate reviewConclusory affidavitMaterial fact
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. 03-05-00500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2009

Marcos Leal and Laura Leal v. McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of Texas, Inc., Both D/B/A McDonald's

Marcos Leal and Laura Leal, husband and wife, sued McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of Texas, Inc. for injuries Laura received after slipping on a wet floor at the McDonald's restaurant where she was employed. The district court granted McDonald's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing the Leals could not produce evidence that McDonald's breached any duty or that McDonald's actions proximately caused Laura's injuries. On appeal, the Leals argued they produced enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding their premises liability claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no evidence that McDonald's had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionActual KnowledgeConstructive KnowledgeEmployer LiabilityTexas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation ExemptionProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. 08-19-00180-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

in Re: Whataburger Restaurants LLC

This dissenting opinion addresses the summary denial of Whataburger Restaurants, L.L.C.'s mandamus petition, which sought to enforce an arbitration clause following a workplace injury sustained by Yvonne Cardwell in 2012. Whataburger, a non-subscriber to the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, had an injury plan and arbitration agreement in place. The case has a complicated procedural history, involving multiple appeals concerning the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and issues of timely notice for trial court rulings. The dissent argues that the trial court or district clerk's failure to notify Whataburger of an adverse ruling constituted "extraordinary circumstances" warranting mandamus relief. Furthermore, Justice Alley contends that the arbitration agreement is not illusory, rejecting Cardwell's argument that Whataburger retained the right to unilaterally alter its terms.

Mandamus PetitionArbitration ClauseWorkplace InjuryIllusory ContractProcedural DefaultExtraordinary CircumstancesTimely NoticeInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationDissenting Opinion
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

In re Mamash Restaurant Corp.

Mamash Restaurant Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions and a fraud penalty for the audit period of January 1993 through December 1995. The Board's assessment was based on findings that Mamash underreported its employees and failed to produce accurate records. Mamash contended that the Board improperly estimated the number of employees due to physical capacity limitations of its premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board was justified in its estimated assessment given Mamash's failure to produce records and evidence from a tax auditor's survey. The fraud penalty was also upheld as warranted under the circumstances.

Unemployment InsuranceUnderreporting EmployeesFraud PenaltyEstimated AssessmentEmployee RecordsAudit PeriodAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2013

Joseph v. HDMJ Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiff Germelia Joseph sued HDMJ Restaurant, Inc. and its owners for discrimination under ADA, Title VII, NYHRL, and New York Labor Law. After initial dismissals of some claims and individual defendants, HDMJ failed to retain counsel, leading to a default. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommended granting default judgment in part for Title VII claims (hostile work environment and retaliation) and denying it for ADA claims, finding no disability under the ADA. District Judge Seybert adopted the R&R, awarding Plaintiff $10,650.00 in back pay, prejudgment interest, $30,000.00 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and $4,371.75 in attorney's fees. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Title VII discriminationADA claimsHostile work environmentRetaliationDefault judgmentEmotional distress damagesBack payPre-judgment interestAttorney's feesEmployment discrimination
References
136
Showing 1-10 of 369 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