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

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Global Marine, Inc.

Jeffrey Paul Bailey filed suit against Gator Hawk, Inc. for damages allegedly sustained while working on an offshore drill site. Gator Hawk moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Jones Act claims, limiting recovery to LHWCA, and dismissing Champlin Petroleum Company's cross-claim. The Court previously denied summary judgment but allowed Gator Hawk to re-urge the motion. This Memorandum and Order addresses Gator Hawk's Motion to Reconsider Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court determined that Bailey did not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act, based on the Fifth Circuit's 'Robison' criteria, as he spent less than 10% of his work time on vessels and was not permanently assigned to an identifiable fleet. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for Gator Hawk on the Jones Act claim, dismissing Bailey's claims under 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. Decisions regarding Bailey's status under LHWCA and Champlin's cross-claim were reserved pending further briefing.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusMaritime EmploymentSummary JudgmentOffshore DrillingWellpipe TestingFifth Circuit PrecedentOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActPersonal Injury
References
15
Case No. 12 Civ. 1596
Regular Panel Decision

Vera v. Republic of Cuba

Plaintiffs, judgment creditors against the Republic of Cuba, initiated a special proceeding to execute on blocked funds held by various respondent banks. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentina (BBVA) resisted, leading to a motion for reconsideration after the court affirmed jurisdiction. BBVA argued that recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions (Daimler and Gucci) narrowed personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations. The court denied BBVA's motion, asserting that BBVA consented to jurisdiction by operating a New York branch and that the cited precedents did not limit broad post-judgment discovery. The court also granted plaintiffs' motions for turnover of uncontested accounts.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities ActTerrorism Risk Insurance ActPost-judgment DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionTurnover MotionsReconsiderationBlocked FundsJudgment Creditors
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ward

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying her request to incur new debt for a used car. Debtor Chinique Ward sought to purchase a vehicle with a 20.25% interest rate from Reid’s Auto Connection, a dealership known for targeting bankruptcy debtors, after her original car was repossessed. The court found the proposed financing unreasonable and not in the debtor's best interest, especially given the dealership had provided the car and paid the debtor's attorney fees without prior court approval. The judge ordered the unwinding of the transaction, mandating the return of payments and the car, and highlighted increased scrutiny for future post-petition borrowing requests due to concerns over predatory practices. This decision underscores the court's role as a gatekeeper for chapter 13 debtors' post-confirmation financial activities, particularly regarding significant debt incurrence.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyPost-Petition DebtCar FinancingMotion to Incur DebtReconsideration DenialHigh Interest RatesPredatory LendingAttorney Fee DisclosureUnwinding TransactionDebtor's Rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. MO:16-CV-00313-RAJ
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2017

Minyard v. Double D Tong, Inc.

Plaintiffs Dustin Minyard, Jeremy Dutch, and Justin Clark filed a collective action lawsuit against Double D Tong, Inc., Robert Duncan, and Cody Duncan, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs claimed they and other non-exempt casing employees were not properly compensated for overtime hours, either due to being paid on a quantity basis without all hours being tracked or by excluding additional pay (bonuses, allowances) from their regular rate for overtime calculations. The court initially granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, limiting the class to Field Hands and Crew Pushers. However, upon Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the court granted the motion, broadening the conditionally certified class to include all non-exempt casing workers who were subject to the alleged common, illegal pay plan, regardless of their specific job duties. The court also approved the dissemination of notice via mail, email, and workplace posting, with specific instructions for the notice content and class period.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayConditional CertificationCollective ActionWage and HourOilfield ServicesNon-Exempt EmployeesPiece Rate PayBonusesTruck Allowance
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tessler v. Suskind

Plaintiff, a union, moved for leave to renew and reconsider a previously denied motion for summary judgment against a stockholder of a corporation for unpaid welfare, pension, and sick leave funds. The court addressed the applicability of Section 71 of the Stock Corporation Law and Section 630 of the Business Corporation Law, which sets the period for commencing such actions. It was determined that the action, commenced on November 11, 1963, was timely under the Business Corporation Law. The motion for renewal was granted, and the motion for summary judgment for $3,184.99 plus interest, costs, and disbursements was also granted.

Summary judgmentMotion for renewalStockholder liabilityUnion contractUnpaid judgmentStatute of limitationsStock Corporation LawBusiness Corporation LawCorporate lawLabor law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,661 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