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
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
Apr 14, 1960

In re the Arbitration between Luggage Workers Union, Local 60, ILGP & NWU & Major Moulders, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a motion to stay arbitration. The appellant and the union had an initial agreement stating they would enter into a full-length collective bargaining agreement, which would include arbitration provisions. However, this subsequent agreement was never signed. The union sought arbitration under this unconsummated agreement, leading the defendant (appellant) to file a motion to stay arbitration. The initial order denying this motion was reversed on appeal, with the court granting the motion to stay arbitration. The court found that without a binding collective agreement, there was no effective commitment by the parties to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeUnconsummated AgreementLack of Arbitration ClauseDenial ReversedCosts and Disbursements
References
0
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
Nov 13, 2018

Saget v. Trump

Plaintiffs challenged the termination of Haiti's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) by the Department of Homeland Security, alleging violations of the TPS statute, Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and constitutional due process and equal protection clauses. Defendants, including President Donald Trump, moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to stay proceedings. The Court, presided over by Judge William F. Kuntz, II, denied both motions. The decision affirmed the court's subject matter jurisdiction over statutory and constitutional claims, allowing plaintiffs' claims regarding arbitrary agency action, lack of notice-and-comment rulemaking, RFA violations, ultra vires acts, and constitutional violations to proceed. The motion to stay pending appellate review of a parallel case was also denied, emphasizing plaintiffs' interest in expeditious proceedings.

TPS terminationHaitiAdministrative Procedures ActDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseImmigration LawJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissMotion to StayDiscriminatory Intent
References
45
Case No. 21 MC 100
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

This opinion addresses motions to stay proceedings in lawsuits filed by thousands of workers, including Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, who claim respiratory and other injuries from 9/11 World Trade Center clean-up efforts. The court clarifies the scope of a prior Second Circuit stay order concerning appeals of immunity claims made by the City of New York and its contractors. Judge Hellerstein rules that the Second Circuit's stay applies to appealing defendants within the CM03-defined World Trade Center site. Consequently, defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to stay is granted, while defendant Verizon New York Inc.'s motion is denied without prejudice, requiring a further showing of its immunity defense. Cases against non-appealing defendants or those outside the CM03 area are generally permitted to proceed with discovery.

World Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-up WorkersRespiratory InjuriesImmunity DefenseMotions to StayAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealCase Management OrdersFederal JurisdictionStabilization Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Matthew 25, Inc.

Jane Doe, an African-American woman, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Matthew 25, Inc., and its executive director, James Finchum, alleging sexual harassment, assault, and race and sex discrimination. Doe claimed that Finchum subjected her to unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate physical contact, and created a hostile work environment. She also asserted a retaliation claim against Matthew 25 for ostracizing her and reducing her job duties after she reported Finchum's conduct. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing the majority of Doe's claims, including those for sexual harassment and race discrimination, to proceed. Additionally, the court denied Finchum's motion to stay the civil proceedings, finding insufficient evidence of an active criminal investigation.

Sexual HarassmentRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentAssault and BatteryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityMotion to DismissMotion to StayEmployment DiscriminationTitle IX Violation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruedemann v. Energy Operators, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles Ruedemann initiated a personal injury lawsuit after sustaining injuries on a drilling platform off the coast of Africa. He sued several entities, including Energy Operators, Inc. (EOI) and CMS Oil and Gas Company. EOI and CMS Oil subsequently filed motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation, citing an arbitration clause in Ruedemann's Independent Contractor Agreement, which designated Texas law for governance. The Court, presided over by District Judge Kent, denied both motions. It concluded that Ruedemann's personal injury claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement under Texas law, as they did not require reference to the contract to be maintained.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryIndependent ContractorChoice of LawTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to CompelDrilling PlatformNegligence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 13,771 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