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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. ADJ9116799
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

JOHN FLOYD vs. CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY (BHHC) for FLOYD, SKEREN & KELLY, LLP et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. In this instance, the Board found no persuasive evidence of such prejudice or harm, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for denial. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judgeextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
References
2
Case No. ADJ9099555
Regular
Jul 05, 2017

RONALD CARETTI vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's (Pepsi Bottling Group) Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur without it. The Board found no such prejudice or harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs.
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110441
Regular
May 03, 2017

ERMINIA AMY MASINI PEREZ vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE, AND CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown, and reconsideration is deemed an inadequate remedy. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice or harm, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning. The Board also accepted the defendant's supplemental pleading.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportSupplemental PleadingExtraordinary RemedyAdministrative Law JudgeADJ10110441
References
2
Case No. ADJ9963968
Regular
Jun 23, 2017

DELLFINIA HARDY vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Dellfinia Hardy's Petition for Removal. The WCAB characterized removal as an extraordinary remedy, granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. Based on the administrative law judge's report analyzing the petitioner's arguments, the WCAB found no such prejudice or harm, thus denying the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionAdverse Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ9868813, ADJ10013839
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

CECILIA ECHEVERRIA DIAZ vs. HOWARD'S SHOPWRITE PHARMACY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Cecilia Echeverria Diaz's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the applicant did not demonstrate such prejudice or harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyCortezKleemannAdjudication
References
2
Case No. ADJ13700881
Regular
Sep 19, 2022

ROSARIO CHAVEZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC, ACE AMERICAN C/O CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's (Barrett Business Services Inc.) Petition for Removal in the case of Rosario Chavez. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy, only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration cannot remedy. Based on the WCJ's analysis, the WCAB was not persuaded that such prejudice or harm existed. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyDenial of PetitionFinal DecisionAdverse Ruling
References
2
Case No. ADJ10290065
Regular
Nov 20, 2019

HOWARD ROSS (deceased), SUSAN G. ROSS vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The Defendant sought to remove an order denying their Petition to Change Venue without prejudice, arguing significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The WCAB found the Defendant failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the case will proceed without removal, allowing discovery and hearings to continue.

Petition for RemovalVenue PetitionIndustrial InjuryAsbestos ExposureSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAppeals BoardExtraordinary RemedyDiscovery
References
1
Case No. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,240 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