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

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NATSOURCE LLC v. Paribello

Natsource LLC sought a preliminary injunction against its former employee, Nunzio Paribello, for allegedly violating non-compete, non-solicitation of customers, and non-solicitation of employees clauses in his employment agreement. Paribello had resigned with intentions to join a competitor, GFI. Natsource argued that Paribello's actions would cause irreparable harm by jeopardizing client relationships and facilitating employee recruitment. The Court deemed the restrictive covenants reasonable in scope and duration, particularly highlighting Paribello's 'unique services' stemming from client relationships cultivated using Natsource's resources. The Court rejected Paribello's counterarguments, including claims of contractual misunderstanding and Natsource's alleged breaches. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, prohibiting Paribello from violating the specified terms of his employment agreement.

Preliminary InjunctionEmployment AgreementRestrictive CovenantsNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseIrreparable HarmLikelihood of SuccessUnique Employee ServicesBrokerage IndustryContract Breach
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. 13-70667
Regular Panel Decision

De Sanchez Day Spa & Salon v. Gomez (In re Gomez)

Plaintiff De Sanchez Day Spa and Salon filed a complaint against former employee Hilda Gomez for violating a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement after Gomez began working at a competing salon within the restricted radius and soliciting former clients. A state court issued a temporary injunction, which Gomez violated. Following Gomez's Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, the case was removed to federal bankruptcy court. Presiding Judge Marvin Isgur granted a preliminary injunction against Gomez until December 15, 2014, finding a substantial likelihood of De Sanchez succeeding on the merits, a threat of irreparable harm due to Gomez's bankruptcy, and that the injury to De Sanchez outweighed the harm to Gomez. The injunction is conditional on De Sanchez posting a $10,000 bond, with a final trial on the merits scheduled for December 15, 2014.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary injunctionBankruptcyBreach of contractNon-solicitationIrreparable harmEnforceability of covenantTexas Business and Commerce CodeEmployment contractTrade secrets
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2011

Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Feingold

This Memorandum and Order addresses Alliantgroup, L.P.'s lawsuit against its former employee, Jeffrey Feingold, for various claims including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and computer fraud. Alliantgroup alleged Feingold violated non-compete, non-solicitation, and nondisclosure provisions by joining a competitor and taking client information. The court previously issued a preliminary injunction, reforming the overbroad non-compete clause. In this decision, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Feingold on all claims except for the alleged failure to repay a $25,000 retention bonus, citing Alliantgroup's failure to present sufficient evidence for damages or to meet claim elements. The case is set for a status conference to address the sole remaining breach of contract claim.

Employment LawNon-Compete ClauseNon-SolicitationNon-Disclosure AgreementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyConversionTortious InterferenceComputer Fraud and Abuse Act
References
78
Case No. 02-20-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Steven Hernandez, Francisco Azuero, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America v. Combined Insurance Company of America

Individual Appellants Steven Hernandez and Francisco Azuero, along with Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, appealed a temporary injunction order granted to Combined Insurance Company of America. Combined alleged that Hernandez and Azuero, former district sales managers, violated non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants in their employment agreements by soliciting Combined's employees and policyholders after joining Family Heritage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that the covenants were reasonable, that Individual Appellants probably solicited Combined's policyholders and agents, and that Combined would suffer imminent and irreparable injury. However, the court reversed and remanded the injunction's form for lacking reasonable detail regarding identified parties and geographic scope. Crucially, the court sustained Family Heritage's appeal, vacating and dissolving the injunction against it, finding no evidence of tortious interference or an agency relationship to support vicarious liability for Individual Appellants' acts.

Temporary InjunctionNoncompete CovenantNonsolicitation AgreementConfidential InformationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorVicarious LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract Breach
References
77
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

May v. Scott

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs Max May and Billy Thompson and Defendant Lawrence Scott concerning Scott's acquisition of Memphis Equipment Company (MEC) and subsequent financial misconduct. Scott, then President of MEC, orchestrated the purchase of MEC stock from its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (MEC ESOP) in 1999 without the knowledge or approval of other board members, leading to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA violations. The Court had previously granted partial summary judgment against Scott for breaching fiduciary duties under Tennessee law and for failing to disclose the stock purchase transaction under ERISA. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found Scott liable for wrongful conversion of MEC funds for personal use, awarding $172,203.66 in damages. Additionally, for ERISA violations related to the non-disclosure, Scott was found personally liable to restore $455,720.78 to the MEC ESOP, and his interest in the ESOP was forfeited. The Court also granted injunctive relief against Scott and awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanCorporate GovernanceFraudulent ConcealmentConversionShareholder Derivative ActionInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,693 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