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
Mar 21, 2017

Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.

This Opinion and Order addresses a divided question among district courts: whether settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment require judicial or Department of Labor (DOL) approval. Citing the Second Circuit's reasoning in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court concludes that such approval is indeed necessary. The decision emphasizes the FLSA's purpose of protecting employees from unequal bargaining power and the potential for abuse in private settlements. The court argues that FLSA claimants lack the capacity to enter binding agreements without court or DOL oversight. The order is certified for interlocutory appeal due to the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this controlling question of law among courts in the Circuit.

FLSARule 68Judicial ApprovalSettlement AgreementDepartment of LaborWorkers' RightsEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSecond CircuitDistrict Court Decision
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Johns-Manville Corp.

This case involves appeals from a District Court's Opinion and Order concerning a Bankruptcy Court's Clarifying Order and Findings related to the Johns-Manville Corporation's asbestos bankruptcy. The original 1986 injunction barred direct suits against Manville's insurers, including Travelers. Subsequently, various plaintiff groups filed direct actions against Travelers, leading to settlements that the Bankruptcy Court approved. Objecting Insurers and Objecting Claimants appealed this approval, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the fairness of the settlement. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin direct action suits and approve the settlements, considering these suits as indirect attempts to recover from Manville's insurance policies. However, the District Court vacated the "gate-keeping" provision of the Clarifying Order, finding it exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. The motions to dismiss the appeals were denied.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcyInsurance LawDirect Action SuitsSettlement AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionBar OrderJudgment ReductionDue ProcessChapter 11 Reorganization
References
44
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses a class and collective action filed by plaintiff Maxcimo Scott against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act due to the misclassification of "apprentices" as exempt from overtime pay. Chipotle asserted statutory good faith defenses under 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260 but sought a protective order to prevent discovery of attorney-client communications, claiming it did not rely on legal advice. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, ruled that Chipotle's invocation of good faith defenses implicitly waived attorney-client privilege, as the advice of counsel was central to evaluating the sincerity of these defenses. Consequently, the court denied Chipotle's motion for a protective order, compelling the production of relevant privileged documents. Additionally, the decision permits discovery into Chipotle's differing classification of apprentices in California, deeming it relevant to the issue of willfulness and good faith in other states.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Minimum Wage Act (NYLL)Overtime CompensationWage and Hour DisputesClass Action LawsuitAttorney-Client PrivilegeAt-Issue WaiverGood Faith DefenseProtective Order MotionEmployment Misclassification
References
32
Case No. ADJ7159953
Regular
Feb 17, 2012

ANTONIO CORONA vs. RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order disallowing their liens and imposing sanctions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the order, and returned the matter for a decision on the merits. The Board found the sanctions unjustified due to unclear orders regarding trial briefs and lack of proper notice, and further noted the judge failed to issue a required opinion explaining the basis for disallowing the liens. The case is remanded for a proper decision with an explanatory opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsReconsiderationWCJ OrderSanctionsTrial BriefsBurden of ProofCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryUtilization Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7777517
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

VIVIAN THOMPSON vs. COUNTRY INN AND SUITES, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to develop the medical record prior to trial. The Board found that the WCJ prematurely ordered further medical development without a sufficient record or evidence of deficient medical opinions, contrary to established procedure. The case is returned to the trial level for proceedings consistent with the opinion, and the WCJ's comments regarding a potential new claim were not addressed as they were not an appealable order.

Petition for RemovalRescinded OrderDevelop Medical RecordThreshold MatterInsufficient Medical OpinionsPretrial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement ConferenceCumulative Trauma InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeAdmitted Into Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. ADJ8204664
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

MARIA MUNOZ vs. FLOREZ FAMILY, INC. dba McDONALD'S RESTAURANT

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interlocutory order by a WCJ regarding the proper selection of a medical panel. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, finding that interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. Additionally, the Board granted removal on its own motion due to the defense attorney's failure to respond to a notice of intent to impose sanctions. Consequently, the defense attorney was ordered to pay a $100 sanction to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsDefense AttorneyFindings and AwardFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4062.2Labor Code section 5900Interlocutory OrderRemoval
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

This opinion and order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the "baseball exemption" from antitrust liability. The MLB Defendants, joined by Television Defendants, sought to appeal an earlier ruling from August 8, 2014, which held that the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball was not shielded by the baseball exemption in cases like Laumann v. National Hockey League and Garber v. Major League Baseball. The court denies the motion, finding no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the baseball exemption's applicability, nor would an immediate appeal materially advance the litigation's termination. Furthermore, the court clarifies that the scope of the baseball exemption is a threshold merits issue, not a jurisdictional question.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentAntitrust LiabilityBaseball ExemptionSherman ActControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionMaterially Advance LitigationJurisdictional IssueMerits Issue
References
27
Case No. 02 Civ. 1243
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

This opinion addresses a discovery dispute concerning the production of electronic data stored on backup tapes in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by Laura Zubulake against UBS. Following a prior order for a sample restoration of emails, Zubulake sought to compel UBS to produce all remaining backup emails at UBS's expense. The court, applying a seven-factor test, ruled that both parties must share the costs of restoring and searching the inaccessible backup tapes. Specifically, UBS is ordered to bear 75% of these costs, while Zubulake is responsible for the remaining 25%. However, UBS must exclusively cover all other costs, including the review and production of the electronic data once it has been converted to an accessible format, emphasizing that only costs related to making inaccessible data accessible should be shifted.

e-discoverycost-shiftingelectronic databackup tapesemail productiongender discriminationdiscovery disputeproportionalityRule 26Rule 68
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 28,558 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