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. 13-cv-4732 (NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

FirstBank Puerto Rico v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In re Lehman Bros.)

This appeal arises from the insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. FirstBank Puerto Rico challenged the sale of bonds it had posted as collateral to a Lehman entity for derivative transactions, which were subsequently sold to Barclays Capital Inc. The District Court affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's judgment, which granted summary judgment to Barclays. The court held that FirstBank lost its property interest in the bonds when Lehman Swaps rehypothecated them to Lehman Brokerage, and therefore, FirstBank had no right to reclaim them from Barclays, who purchased them in a bankruptcy sale. The court also affirmed the sanctions against FirstBank for violating the Bankruptcy Court’s anti-suit injunction.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsInsolvencyDerivative TransactionsCollateralRehypothecationRepo AgreementsAsset SaleAnti-Suit InjunctionSummary JudgmentContempt Order
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Enterprise Rent a Car Co. of Texas

Plaintiff Stephanie Jones sued Enterprise Rent a Car Company of Texas, Enterprise Leasing Company of Houston, and Enterprise Rent a Car Company, alleging wrongful termination, various RICO violations, sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Jones' RICO claims. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the RICO claims with prejudice. The Court held that Jones lacked standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because her injury (wrongful termination for refusing to participate in fraudulent schemes) was not proximately caused by the alleged RICO predicate acts, but by her employer's decision to fire her. Other claims remain intact.

RICO ActMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationRacketeering ActivityPredicate ActsHobbs Act ExtortionWire FraudMail FraudFinancial Institution FraudEmployee Standing
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ranieri v. Advocare Int'l, L.P.

This is a class action lawsuit filed by former AdvoCare Distributors, Lisa Ranieri and Megan Cornelius, against AdvoCare International, L.P. and several "Individual Defendants" who are top Distributors. Plaintiffs allege AdvoCare operates as an illegal pyramid scheme, violating RICO, federal securities laws, and causing unjust enrichment. The Individual Defendants are accused of promoting the alleged pyramid scheme. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by both AdvoCare and the Individual Defendants. The court denied dismissal of AdvoCare's primary RICO violations claims but granted dismissal of AdvoCare's RICO conspiracy, securities fraud, and unjust enrichment claims. It also granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss all RICO causes of action against them. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice, while other dismissed claims were without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint.

Class ActionMotion to DismissRICO ActPyramid SchemeSecurities FraudUnjust EnrichmentPleading StandardsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)PSLRA
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. New York Rosbruch/Harnik, Inc.

Plaintiffs Todd and Erin Turner sued New York Rosbruch/Harnik (NYRH) and the Estate of Alvin Russell Lewis, an NYRH employee, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the RICO Act. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants misrepresented investments for short-term, high-interest loans, leading to significant financial hardship. Defendant NYRH moved to dismiss the claims, specifically the civil RICO claim, for failure to state a claim and failure to satisfy pleading requirements. The court granted NYRH's motion, dismissing the RICO claim with prejudice due to insufficient pleading under Rule 9(b) and failure to establish a cognizable RICO violation. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The request for leave to replead was denied as futile.

FraudRICO ActMotion to DismissPleading RequirementsRule 9(b) FRCPWire FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutySupplemental JurisdictionInvestment FraudFinancial Advisor Misconduct
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2004

In re Rico D.

The mother appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Kings County, dated July 12, 2004. The order determined that she neglected Saka E-L. and derivatively neglected Rico D. and Dior F. The appeals court affirmed the order, finding that the child’s out-of-court statements, corroborated by a social worker’s observations and the child’s school and medical records, were sufficient to establish neglect. The court also upheld the finding of derivative neglect, citing the mother’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibility.

Child neglectDerivative neglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of child's statementsCredibility determinationParental responsibilityAppellate reviewOrder of dispositionKings County Family CourtOut-of-court statements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerardo Rico v. Judson Lofts, Ltd.

Gerardo Rico appealed a summary judgment in favor of Judson Lofts, Ltd. in his common law negligence suit, seeking recovery for workplace injuries. The central issue was whether Judson Lofts, Ltd. was protected by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, specifically debating if Judson Lofts, Ltd. was covered by a workers' compensation policy issued to 'Judson Lofts, LLC' by Nationwide Staff Leasing. The appellate court affirmed that Judson Lofts, Ltd. and Judson Lofts, LLC were the same entity. However, the court found the Service Agreement between Judson and Nationwide ambiguous regarding the sharing of employment responsibilities, such as direction, control, hiring, and firing, as mandated by the Staff Leasing Services Act. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings because Judson failed to conclusively establish its affirmative defense.

NegligenceWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCo-employer LiabilityContract AmbiguityTypographical ErrorAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 1990

Clapp v. Greene

Plaintiff Alison Clapp, a former partner at LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae (LLL & M), sued the firm's partners for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), along with state tort and contract claims. Clapp alleged her expulsion from the partnership interfered with her ERISA benefit rights and that partners engaged in commercial bribery to transfer client accounts, constituting a RICO violation. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the ERISA claim as the loss of benefits was a mere consequence of termination. The RICO claim was dismissed for failing to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' finding it a single, closed-ended transaction. Consequently, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them.

ERISA ViolationRICO ViolationPartnership DisputeEmployment TerminationCommercial BriberyPension RightsHealth BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionDeclaratory Relief ActionInjunctive Relief Action
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wasserman v. Maimonides Medical Center

Dr. Herbert Wasserman, a surgeon, sued Maimonides Medical Center and several individuals, including Dr. Joseph Cunningham, alleging RICO violations, denial of constitutional due process and equal protection, and various New York State law claims. The suit stemmed from a peer review process that resulted in his two-week suspension and one-year monitoring, which he claimed was a result of Dr. Cunningham's harassment and a fraudulent conspiracy. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and requested sanctions. The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims due to insufficient pleading of RICO violations against most defendants and lack of state action for constitutional claims, declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. However, the court allowed plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint solely against Dr. Cunningham for the RICO claims, and denied the request for sanctions.

RICOMail FraudRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Peer ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Law ClaimsSanctionsRule 11
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 7,424 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