Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3007363 (OXN 0133349), ADJ1569912 (OXN 0133350)

Regular

Apr 02, 2013

JAVIER VILLANUEVA, JAVIER VILLANUEVA-GOMEZ vs. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ESIS INSURANCE SERVICES COMPANY

This case involves Javier Villanueva appealing his workers' compensation award from Panda Restaurant Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original decision, with one key amendment. The amended finding clarifies that Villanueva suffered 26% permanent disability in case ADJ1569912, entitling him to weekly payments totaling $18,823.75. Additionally, $2,823.50 is to be withheld from accrued indemnity pending resolution of attorney fee division between current and former counsel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPANDA RESTAURANT GROUPESIS INSURANCE SERVICES COMPANYRECONSIDERATIONAMENDED DECISIONPERMANENT DISABILITYWEEKLY INDEMNITYSIMULTANEOUS COMMENCEMENTACCRUED INDEMNITYATTORNEY FEE DIVISION

References

Case No. 2018-07877 (Index No. 702379/15)

Regular Panel Decision

May 19, 2021

Zhi Eric Zhang v. ABC Corp.

The plaintiff, Zhi Eric Zhang, was injured in a mall restaurant after being attacked by a group of customers from an adjacent karaoke establishment. He initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries against New World Mall, LLC (the mall's lessee) and Grand Restaurant Group, Inc. (GRGI, the sublessee operating the restaurant and karaoke). The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to protect against unforeseen assaults, and GRGI additionally claimed immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions as the alter ego of the plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie that the assault was unforeseeable and unexpected, and GRGI failed to establish its alter ego status.

Personal InjuryAssaultPremises LiabilityForeseeability of HarmSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewRestaurant LiabilityMall Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment

References

Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)

Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay

References

Case No. ADJ15927101

Regular

Sep 26, 2022

FRANCISCO VILLEGAS vs. RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT FABRICATION, ICW GROUP INSURANCE COMPANIES - SAN DIEGO

The defendant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) based on alleged unilateral mistake. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as premature. The matter is returned to the trial level for the judge to treat the defendant's filing as a petition to set aside the C&R and schedule a hearing. This will allow the defendant to present evidence supporting their claims and create a record for a decision.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseprematuretrial leveldue processfair hearingrescindalter

References

Case No. ADJ7844393

Regular

Jun 20, 2014

EDUARDO GUADARRAMA vs. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves Eduardo Guadarrama's claim for cumulative industrial injuries to his wrists, left knee, digestive system, and psyche against Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Guadarrama's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found Guadarrama lacked credibility and that the medical evidence presented was not substantial. Ultimately, the judge determined that the alleged injuries were not predominantly work-related, especially considering the uncorroborated and exaggerated nature of some claims.

ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Credibility FindingCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination DefenseSomatization DisorderExaggerationEmbellishment

References

Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC

Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]

Regular Panel Decision

May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,863 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3007363 (OXN 0133349), ADJ1569912 (OXN 0133350)

Regular

Apr 02, 2013

JAVIER VILLANUEVA, JAVIER VILLANUEVA-GOMEZ vs. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ESIS INSURANCE SERVICES COMPANY

References

Case No. 2018-07877 (Index No. 702379/15)

Regular Panel Decision

May 19, 2021

Zhi Eric Zhang v. ABC Corp.

Personal InjuryAssaultPremises LiabilityForeseeability of HarmSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewRestaurant LiabilityMall Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment

References

Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)

Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay

References

Case No. ADJ15927101

Regular

Sep 26, 2022

FRANCISCO VILLEGAS vs. RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT FABRICATION, ICW GROUP INSURANCE COMPANIES - SAN DIEGO

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseprematuretrial leveldue processfair hearingrescindalter

References

Case No. ADJ7844393

Regular

Jun 20, 2014

EDUARDO GUADARRAMA vs. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Credibility FindingCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination DefenseSomatization DisorderExaggerationEmbellishment

References

Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC

Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]

Regular Panel Decision

May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,863 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.