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. 02 MDL 1499, No. 153, 03 Civ. 4524, No. 83
Regular Panel Decision

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation

This opinion addresses two class actions brought by South Africans against multinational corporations under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), alleging aiding and abetting torts related to the apartheid system. Specifically, the Court considered Fujitsu Limited's motion to dismiss claims against it. Plaintiffs contended that Fujitsu's subsidiary, International Computers Limited (ICL), supplied computer systems used by the apartheid-era South African government to enforce racial pass laws. The Court found that while ICL had a relationship with the South African government that predated its deep relationship with Fujitsu, the plaintiffs failed to present plausible allegations of a principal-agent relationship between Fujitsu and ICL during the relevant period of ICL's alleged unlawful activities (1981-1986). The decision to grant Fujitsu's motion to dismiss was based on the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating Fujitsu's direct control over ICL's specific business activities concerning South Africa's pass laws, distinguishing it from other cases where vicarious liability was established.

Alien Tort Claims ActApartheid LitigationCorporate LiabilityVicarious LiabilityMotion to DismissAgency RelationshipSouth AfricaInternational LawHuman RightsFujitsu
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. ADJ10345987, ADJ10346315
Regular
Jul 26, 2016

MIGUEL SILVAN vs. NKECHI AFRICAN CAFE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Miguel Silvan's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial. The WCJ's report, adopted by the WCAB, determined the appealed decision was procedural and interlocutory. Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bittencourt v. Ferrara Bakery & Café Inc.

Plaintiff Jucialaine Bittencourt filed an action against Ferrara Bakery & Café, Inc. and related parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning unpaid minimum wages and tip credit notice failures. She sought conditional collective action certification. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted the motion in part, specifically certifying a collective action for waitstaff. The decision was based on a sufficient factual showing, including affidavits from Bittencourt and another waiter, Czako Zsolt, detailing common unlawful wage policies. However, the motion was denied for other employee categories due to insufficient factual detail. The court also provided directives for the notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, including the notice period and language modifications.

FLSANYLLWage ViolationCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageTip CreditWaitstaffRestaurant IndustryEmployment Law
References
50
Case No. ADJ8075069
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

African Grant vs. Washington Redskins, Hartford Insurance Company

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the Washington Redskins and their insurer, Hartford Insurance Company, concerning a workers' compensation award. The petition was dismissed because it was filed beyond the statutory 25-day deadline after the initial Findings and Award were issued. Even if considered on its merits, the Board would have denied reconsideration based on the provided report and recommendation. The Judge's report details that the applicant, African Grant, sustained a cumulative trauma injury over his football career, and the dismissal was based solely on the untimeliness of the petition.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingLabor Code Section 5903cumulative traumastatute of limitationsLabor Code Section 5412substantial evidenceLabor Code Section 5500.5relation back doctrinejurisdiction
References
3
Case No. ADJ7106903
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

DAVID CONNOR vs. RESTAURANTS TO YOU/CAFÉ RUNNER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This order transfers venue for Case No. ADJ7106903, involving David Connor and Restaurants To You/Café Runner, from the San Luis Obispo District Office to the Santa Barbara Satellite Office. The transfer is necessitated by both parties exercising their challenges under Appeals Board Rule 10453, leaving no available judges in San Luis Obispo. The Presiding Judge in Santa Barbara will schedule the matter for trial upon receipt.

Venue transferAppeals Board rule 10453Challenge of judgePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeSanta Barbara Satellite OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSetting for trialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRestaurants to YouCafe Runner
References
1
Case No. ADJ7340845
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

MARIA INIGUEZ vs. PERKOS CAFÉ AND GRILL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an applicant's claim. The applicant, Maria Iniguez, injured herself while working as a cook at Perkos Café and Grill. The Board upheld the judge's finding that Iniguez reported her injury to Maria Vargas, who was deemed a supervisor under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10), despite the employer's claims otherwise. The decision emphasized giving great weight to the judge's credibility findings regarding the witnesses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Findings of Fact and Ordershift supervisorreporting injuryL.C. §3600(a)(10)supervisory personperson in charge
References
1
Case No. ADJ10483272
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

ADRIAN FRIAS vs. AVANTI CAFE, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied defendant Avanti Cafe's petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB reviewed the defendant's amended petitions, but found no substantial new grounds for appeal. While the WCAB adopted the workers' compensation judge's report, they specifically excluded the portion addressing the unsigned proof of service, while cautioning the defendant about future compliance. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the prior decision and denied reconsideration.

Petitions for ReconsiderationAmended PetitionsProof of ServiceAppeals Board Rule 10505Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationIncorporated ReportComplianceEndorsed StatementSigned Proof of Service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hard Rock Cafe International, (USA), Inc. v. Hard Rock Hotel Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc. (HRCI), owner of 'Hard Rock' trademarks, sued Hard Rock Defendants and Equity Holder Defendants for breach of contract, trademark dilution, infringement, and unfair competition. The Hard Rock Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. Claims against most Equity Holder Defendants were dismissed, except for Morgans Management. The motion to compel arbitration for issues related to the 'Rehab' TV show and the Tulsa and Albuquerque properties was granted, but a motion to stay the action pending arbitration was denied. The court also granted HRCI's motion to dismiss certain breach of contract counterclaims and the tortious interference counterclaim, while denying dismissal for other breach of contract counterclaims and the good faith and fair dealing counterclaim.

Trademark DisputeLanham ActUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractMotion to DismissArbitrationLicensing AgreementJoint TortfeasorGood Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference
References
72
Showing 1-10 of 151 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