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

Verdi v. United States

This case addresses the application of pendent jurisdiction in a Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) case where a state common law claim is asserted against a party over whom there is no independent federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs brought an action, including a claim against the Town of Huntington, following a slip and fall accident near a U.S. Post Office. The Town of Huntington moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Magistrate recommended retaining jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of pendent-party jurisdiction. The District Court adopted this recommendation, concluding that pendent-party jurisdiction is appropriate in FTCA cases under these circumstances to ensure all claims can be tried in a single federal forum. Therefore, the Town of Huntington's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for an interlocutory appeal was also denied.

Pendent JurisdictionFederal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallMotion to DismissPersonal InjuryFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCommon Nucleus of Operative FactInterlocutory AppealJudicial Economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kamens v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage & Realty Trust

Plaintiff, a shareholder, initiated a class action against Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a breach of common law fiduciary duty. The federal securities claim was asserted under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, while the common law claim sought pendent jurisdiction. The defendant moved to dismiss Count II (the common law claim), arguing a lack of standing and that the court should decline pendent jurisdiction according to United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs. The court, after analyzing the factual distinctions between the federal and state claims, determined that they lacked the necessary 'common nucleus of operative fact' required for pendent jurisdiction. Consequently, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the common law claim, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss Count II.

Securities Exchange ActSection 10(b)Rule 10b-5Pendent JurisdictionCommon Law Fiduciary DutyClass ActionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Investment Adviser
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depaja Enterprises, Ltd. v. American Bank & Trust Co.

The court addressed a motion by defendant Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint asserted claims under federal securities laws, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and pendent jurisdiction. The court found no subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against Bank Leumi under federal securities laws, noting the absence of a "common nucleus of operative facts." Regarding the claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for a State bank, the court determined it did not arise under federal laws. Citing Aldinger v. Howard, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over Bank Leumi, emphasizing that the relevant statute did not intend Bank Leumi to be a party. Additionally, the court decided against exercising its discretionary pendent jurisdiction, concluding the state law claim against Bank Leumi belonged in state courts. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.Pendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawsFederal Deposit Insurance ActContractual ClaimReceiver of State BankPendent Party JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stuhmer & Co. v. Korman

This case addresses a motion by defendants to vacate a stay contained within an order to show cause for an injunction pendente lite. The defendants argued that Section 882 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended in 1930, was not complied with. The court clarifies that the amended statute requires notice for temporary injunctions, but the character and extent of such notice are at the court's discretion, and any notice deemed sufficient by the court is compliant. The court further clarifies that the notice was not jurisdictionally defective merely because the summons and complaint had not been served at the time of the notice, as jurisdiction is provisional upon subsequent service. Therefore, the motion to vacate the stay was denied.

Injunction Pendente LiteStay OrderCivil Practice ActStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionNotice RequirementMotion PracticeTemporary InjunctionsNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Komatsu America Corp. v. Portside Cargo Securing Co.

Komatsu America Corp. sued Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for damage to cargo sustained during a train derailment. Komatsu alleged that Conrail, a connecting carrier, received the shipment in New Jersey and delivered it in damaged condition to Michigan. The plaintiff asserted federal question jurisdiction under the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 11707) and, alternatively, pendent party jurisdiction. The court, presided over by District Judge Lasker, determined there was no federal question jurisdiction because the Carmack Amendment applies only to the initial or delivering carrier, neither of which Conrail was found to be. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction based on judicial discretion, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against Conrail and the denial of Komatsu's related motions.

Cargo damageTrain derailmentCarmack AmendmentFederal question jurisdictionPendent party jurisdictionConnecting carrierDelivering carrierBill of ladingJudicial discretionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. a & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc.

The United States filed a complaint under CERCLA against A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., and Marine Midland Bank, N.A., for costs incurred to clean up toxic chemicals. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. subsequently filed a third-party claim against its insurers, including Utica Mutual Insurance Company, seeking indemnification. Utica moved to dismiss this third-party claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Finley v. United States decision. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied Utica's motion, finding that the claim fell within the court’s pendent party jurisdiction. The decision concluded that CERCLA's jurisdictional grant does not implicitly negate pendent party jurisdiction and that discretionary factors favored hearing all claims together for judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Pendent Party JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionCERCLAThird-Party ClaimIndemnificationInsurance LawFederal JurisdictionDistrict CourtRule 12(b)(1) MotionCivil Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Transportation Communications Union

The plaintiff, George T. Lee, an employee of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), alleged that a co-employee, Mark Paz, committed assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also brought a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim against LIRR for negligence. The central legal question addressed by the court was whether it could exercise pendent-party jurisdiction over Paz for the state-law claims, given that the FELA primarily imposes liability on the railroad employer and not on individual co-employees, and no other independent basis for federal jurisdiction over Paz existed. Relying on recent Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedents, the court concluded that FELA does not authorize pendent-party jurisdiction over additional parties like co-employees. Consequently, the court granted Paz's motion to dismiss the complaint against him due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while denying Paz's request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Pendent-party jurisdictionFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Subject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismissCo-employee liabilityState-law claimsAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRule 12(b) dismissalRule 11 sanctions
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Bankers Ass'n of New York State Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

This case involves an action brought by the Independent Bankers Association of New York State, Inc. and The Canadaigua National Bank and Trust Company against Marine Midland Bank, N.A. and Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Marine Midland violated Section 36 of the National Banking Act by operating an automated teller machine (ATM) at a Wegman's supermarket, constituting unauthorized branch banking. Concurrently, a state law claim was brought against Wegman's for violating Section 131 of the New York Banking Law, which prohibits unauthorized banking activities. Wegman's filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim, specifically concerning the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a party not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction. The court determined that it possessed both the constitutional power under Article III and the statutory power under 12 U.S.C. Section 36 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 to exercise pendent party jurisdiction. Finding that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants would be served by hearing the claims together, the court exercised its discretion and denied Wegman’s motion to dismiss.

Pendant JurisdictionNational Banking ActNew York Banking LawATMBranch BankingSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial PowerFederal Question JurisdictionArticle IIIStatutory Construction
References
19
Case No. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.

The Plaintiffs, comprising ERISA funds and their trustees, sued Delta Plumbing and Heating Corporation for delinquent fringe benefits and later added New York Surety Company as a defendant on its bond. Following Delta's bankruptcy, New York Surety became the sole defendant and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that a surety is not an 'employer' under ERISA and that the court lacked pendent party jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the 'plain meaning' of ERISA's definition of 'employer' could extend to a surety that acts in the interest of an employer by guaranteeing contributions. Furthermore, the court found that under the legal framework applicable to this pre-1990 action, ERISA's statutory language did not confer pendent party jurisdiction.

ERISA EnforcementSurety LiabilityDelinquent ContributionsSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionCollective BargainingMultiemployer Pension PlansEmployee Benefits SecurityFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 4,402 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