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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The plaintiff, Susan Pieper d/b/a Pet Expressions, filed an action alleging a racketeering scheme and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Ron Coiro, Benerin, LLC, Smithaven Veterinary Clinic, Inc., and Smithaven Grooming. Pieper claimed the defendants conspired to overcharge her for utilities, disrupt her business, and defraud the Town of Smithtown, along with state law claims for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice, citing lack of standing for claims against third parties, insufficient pleading specificity for some defendants, and failure to establish a pattern of racketeering activity with open-ended or close-ended continuity. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActRICOMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudExtortionPleading StandardsFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)Pattern of Racketeering Activity
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

District Judge Vitaliano denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial from defendants Harvey Christian, Anthony Christian, and Jason Quinn, who were convicted of racketeering, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. The defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly concerning enterprise membership and individual involvement, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence supported the "Park Hill Enterprise" and the defendants' participation in racketeering acts. It also rejected claims of prosecutorial impropriety and denied a request for a Kastigar hearing, concluding no new trial was warranted.

RacketeeringDrug TraffickingFirearms OffensesMurder in Aid of RacketeeringConspiracyJudgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionRule 29Rule 33Sufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2010

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Defendant Michael Forde pled guilty to racketeering conspiracy and acts of racketeering. He requested a sentence below the United States Sentencing Guidelines' recommended range of 108 to 135 months, while the Government advocated for a sentence at the top of this range. The Court denied Forde's request, adopting the findings of the Presentence Investigation Report and sentencing him to 132 months of incarceration and a $50,000 fine. The decision emphasized the extraordinary nature of Forde's corruption over 15 years as a high-ranking union official, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, embezzlement, and significant financial losses to union benefit funds, all in violation of a standing court judgment.

RacketeeringSentencing GuidelinesUnion CorruptionEmbezzlementFederal CrimeGuilty PleaAggravating FactorsPublic Official MisconductCriminal SentencingOrganizational Fraud
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This Memorandum and Order addresses motions to dismiss filed by Partner and Accountant Defendants in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case. Plaintiffs, partners in New York real estate partnerships, alleged a scheme involving tax evasion by Partner Defendants and fraudulent accounting services by Accountant Defendants. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Accountant Defendants did not participate in the operation or management of the alleged enterprise as required by RICO. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged four acts of mail fraud over three years did not constitute a sufficient pattern of racketeering activity due to a lack of continuity. Consequently, all federal RICO claims were dismissed, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them as well.

RICOMail FraudRacketeeringMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureEnterprisePattern of Racketeering ActivityRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Supplemental Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This action involves state law claims for fraud and breach of agreement, alongside federal claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), brought by Plaintiff Antonio Ferri. Ferri alleges that Defendants Edward Wilson, Jan Berkowitz, JMB Group, LLC, and Edward Grieco engaged in fraudulent activities related to a $250,000 loan. The court addressed a motion by Defendant Wilson to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction, with other defendants joining the motion to dismiss on the merits. The court dismissed all RICO claims against all defendants for insufficient pleading of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity. Additionally, all claims against Defendant Wilson were dismissed due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The state law claims against the remaining defendants continue.

RICO ActFraudBreach of AgreementMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionRacketeering ActivityEnterprise (RICO)Wire FraudBankruptcy FraudMortgage Fraud
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1997

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

First Interregional Advisors Corp. (FIAC), a financial firm, sued Emanuel Wolff and other defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), alleging a complex scheme of mail and wire fraud. FIAC claimed the defendants defrauded them of nearly $2.2 million through misrepresentations regarding the financial health of Capital Information Company (CIC) and the collectibility of its accounts receivable. The court denied the motion to dismiss for defendants Emanuel Wolff, CIC, Mark Karasick, and Thomas Tyndall, finding sufficient allegations of racketeering activity and a pattern of fraud. However, the motion to dismiss was granted for several other named Wolff Defendants due to insufficient allegations. Additionally, the court denied a motion by the Wolff Defendants to disqualify FIAC's counsel, Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissPleading RequirementsRule 9(b) FRCPRacketeering ActivityCriminal EnterpriseConspiracyProximate Cause
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiffs Flexborrow LLC and The Vault Auto Group, LLC (collectively "plaintiffs") initiated an action against TD Auto Finance LLC ("defendant"), asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and New York State law for lender liability and fraud. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the RICO claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to adequately allege the defendant's participation in a RICO enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with the required particularity. The RICO conspiracy claim was also dismissed. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

RICO ActRacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudPleading StandardsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Fraudulent SchemeLender LiabilitySupplemental Jurisdiction
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Six former employees of Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco) sued Arco and American Brass Company (ABC) after being discharged by ABC shortly after Arco sold its Metals Division to ABC. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) through mail fraud, aiming to defraud them of superior Arco severance benefits. They also brought a state law claim for breach of employment agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the RICO claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege a 'pattern of racketeering activity' as required by RICO, finding the alleged acts to be part of a single transaction rather than continuous criminal activity. Consequently, the state law claim was also dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICOMail FraudRacketeering ActivitySeverance BenefitsEmployment AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7)Pattern RequirementContinuity Plus Relationship
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 85 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