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

Hanley v. Lobster Box Restaurant, Inc.

This decision addresses a motion to dismiss filed by third-party defendant Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 100, against the third-party complaint of Lobster Box Restaurant, Inc. Lobster Box sought a declaration that its collective bargaining agreement with Local 100 was voidable due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation, and requested indemnification. Presiding Judge Berman, citing Textron Lycoming, determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under LMRA § 301, as the statute applies to contract violations and not claims of contract invalidity. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lobster Box's state common law claims, deferring to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board under the Garmon preemption doctrine. Consequently, the third-party complaint was dismissed.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLMRA Section 301Contract ValidityFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Garmon PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementThird-Party ComplaintFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenosha Beef International, Inc. v. McCook Boxed Beef Corp. (In re McCook Boxed Beef Corp.)

Bankers Trust Company applied for an injunction to prevent Kenosha Beef International from pursuing a New York State Supreme Court action. Bankers Trust argued that the issues had already been resolved against Kenosha by an examiner appointed in a related Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of McCook Boxed Beef Corp. Kenosha countered that it had not received a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter. The Bankruptcy Court examined the applicability of res judicata and collateral estoppel, recognizing its power to enjoin state court actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2283. While res judicata was deemed inapplicable, the Court, exercising its discretion, refrained from applying collateral estoppel. Consequently, Bankers Trust's motion for an injunction was denied.

Injunctive ReliefBankruptcy LawRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAnti-Injunction ActFederal vs. State Court JurisdictionExaminer's ReportFraud AllegationsCreditor DisputeChapter 11 Proceedings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rocket Jewelry Box, Inc. v. Noble Gift Packaging, Inc.

Rocket Jewelry Box, Inc. petitioned the court to confirm an arbitration award against Noble Gift Packaging, Inc., while Noble cross-petitioned to vacate the award. The arbitration stemmed from disputes over a patent license agreement for jewelry boxes, which Rocket terminated, leading to litigation and a subsequent arbitration where Noble was found to have breached the agreement. Noble argued for vacatur on grounds that the award was not final, the arbitrators exceeded their powers, and they manifestly disregarded the law concerning waiver. The court, presided over by Judge Mukasey, found that the arbitration award was final, as Noble's reserved patent invalidity defense would not affect its royalty obligations due to lack of prior notification. The court also determined that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in allocating arbitration costs, nor did they manifestly disregard the law by handling the waiver issue as they did. Consequently, Rocket's petition to confirm the arbitration award was granted, and Noble's cross-petition to vacate was denied.

ArbitrationPatent LawContract DisputesRoyalty AgreementsJudicial ReviewFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionAward ConfirmationVacaturLicensee Estoppel
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2014

Box v. Colvin

The plaintiff, William Charles Box, challenged a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, denying him disability benefits. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors in the August 6, 2010 decision. These errors included failing to properly weigh the opinion of the plaintiff's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Benatar, and making an unsupported Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment. Additionally, the ALJ's credibility determination of the plaintiff was deemed flawed for not considering all relevant regulatory factors. The court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted in part the plaintiff's motion, remanding the case for another hearing consistent with its decision.

Social Security Disability BenefitsACL TearMeniscus TearOsteoarthritisRight Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentCase Remand
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

Joan Hansen & Co. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an arbitral award. Respondents Everlast challenged the award, arguing procedural defaults, arbitrator misconduct, and that arbitrators exceeded their authority in interpreting 'termination' versus 'expiration' in a contract. The court found no default by Everlast, stating their motion to vacate did not prejudice the petitioner. It also found no arbitrator misconduct as Everlast failed to prove the necessity of requested disclosures. Furthermore, the court determined that the arbitrators' interpretation of 'termination' as distinct from 'expiration' was rational and supported by the agreement's context, and thus they did not exceed their powers. The court reiterated that manifest disregard of facts is not a valid ground for vacating an award.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationArbitrator AuthorityProcedural LawAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme CourtCommercial ArbitrationContractual TermsAffirmanceLegal Interpretation
References
10
Case No. ADJ2747954 (LAO 0820830) ADJ1942372 (LAO 0822123) ADJ2627431 (LAO 0820831)
Regular
Aug 15, 2016

ROSARIO GUTIERREZ vs. ADVANCE PAPER BOX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a petition for reconsideration in the case of Rosario Gutierrez versus Advance Paper Box and its insurer, the California Insurance Guarantee Association. The dismissal is due to the petitioner voluntarily withdrawing their request for reconsideration of the June 3, 2016 decision. This administrative order formally closes the reconsideration process as requested.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdvance Paper BoxCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSedgwickUS Fidelity & GuaranteeLiquidationCase Numbers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2015

Mitre Sports International Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc.

Magistrate Judge Pitman addressed four discovery disputes between Mitre Sports International Limited and Home Box Office, Inc. The court overruled HBO's objections to the Special Master's decision regarding privilege and work product waiver, finding no subject-matter waiver by Mitre. HBO's application to compel further in-person deposition of Kam Raghavan was largely denied, requiring a video link unless over five hours of questioning remained. Mitre's application for additional interrogatory responses was denied due to procedural issues and lack of demonstrated practicality. Lastly, Mitre's motion to preclude the use of the Cottingham declaration was denied, with the court finding adequate prior disclosure.

Discovery disputesWork-product doctrinePrivilege waiverFederal Rules of Evidence Rule 502Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26Deposition testimonyInterrogatoriesSummary judgmentDefamation claimChild labor allegations
References
51
Case No. SDO 0325072
Regular
Jun 09, 2008

RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ (RAYMUNDO SILVA) vs. JACK IN THE BOX, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING PENNSYLVANIA, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

In *Ramirez v. Jack in the Box*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal because the petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The lien claimants sought removal of a stay order preventing them from enforcing their liens while issues of authorization and potential consolidation were addressed. The Board found the stay necessary to resolve complex issues of representation and licensing for the lien claimants.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABRemoval DeniedSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmLien ClaimantsPetition for ConsolidationStay of Proceedings
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregg v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, an Administrative Law Judge, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after injuring his back while attempting to retrieve a file from a stack of boxes. The Respondent Comptroller denied the application, finding the injury was not an accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 63, as it occurred during ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event. The court upheld the Comptroller's determination, concluding that the petitioner's actions in attempting to retrieve the file from the stacked boxes, without removing the top box, constituted an expected event within his ordinary duties. Therefore, the injury was not considered accidental, and the petition to annul the determination was dismissed.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeOrdinary Employment DutiesUnexpected EventCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewComptroller DecisionInjuryBack Injury
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 93 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