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

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jody Fair, Inc. v. Dubinsky

Plaintiff Jody Fair, Inc. moved to remand its action from federal court back to the New York State Supreme Court. The defendants, International Ladies Garment Workers Union and Local 25, had removed the case, alleging it involved a claim under the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically section 303(b) concerning secondary boycotts. Plaintiff argued its complaint alleged a common law prima facie tort under New York law, asserting malicious intent by the unions to coerce payment of a debt from a separate entity, Aansworth Ltd., for which Jody Fair, Inc. was not liable. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the complaint, fairly read, alleges a prima facie tort at common law and does not necessarily arise under federal labor law. The court also noted that the specific labor activities in question were exempt from federal secondary boycott bans under section 8(e) due to the needle trade exemption, suggesting no federal remedy existed.

Prima Facie TortLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionRemand MotionSecondary BoycottNeedle Trade ExemptionLabor Management Relations ActCommon LawUnfair Labor Practice
References
15
Case No. ADJ 1293553 (VNO 0460149)
Regular
May 12, 2016

CHARLES HOLDER vs. TROY CHRISTIAN dba ADVENTURE LIMOUSINE, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a billing dispute for medical treatment provided to applicant Charles Holder. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has remanded the matter for the trial judge to determine if Independent Bill Review (IBR) was properly initiated for services rendered on or after January 1, 2013. The Court of Appeal ordered this remand due to uncertainty regarding whether the defendant provided adequate explanations of review, which is a prerequisite for IBR. If IBR was not properly initiated, the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemandIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Official Medical Fee ScheduleLien ClaimantJurisdictionTrial LevelFindings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oseekey v. SPAULDING FIBRE CO., INC.

Plaintiff initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court against his former employer, Spaulding Fi-bre Company, seeking recovery of wrongfully withheld severance pay benefits. The defendant subsequently removed the case to federal court, asserting that the plaintiff's state law claims for severance pay were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiff moved for a remand, contending that the removal was untimely and that his cause of action was not federally based. However, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a remand. It determined that the removal petition was timely filed within 30 days after the plaintiff first indicated ERISA as a possible alternative basis for his claim in October 1986, making the case ascertainably removable at that point.

Severance PayERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionTimeliness of RemovalFederal Question JurisdictionConcurrent JurisdictionState Law ClaimsEmployee Retirement Income Security ActMotion to RemandWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
7
Case No. 12-cv-6439-RWS
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2012

In re Facebook, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Zack moved to remand his proposed class action against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to New York State Court. Zack alleged negligence by NASDAQ regarding system design and conduct during the Facebook IPO on May 18, 2012, which led to order execution problems for investors. NASDAQ removed the action to the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court considered the 'Grable exception' to the well-pleaded complaint rule, finding that Zack's state-law negligence claims necessarily implicated substantial federal issues concerning NASDAQ's regulatory duties as a self-regulatory organization under the Exchange Act. Citing precedent like D’Alessio v. New York Stock Exch., the court determined that the case required construing federal securities laws and evaluating NASDAQ's federally defined duties, thus conferring federal question jurisdiction. Consequently, Zack's motion to remand was denied.

Federal Question JurisdictionMotion to RemandClass ActionSecurities Exchange ActNASDAQFacebook IPONegligenceSelf-Regulatory OrganizationExchange RulesS.D.N.Y.
References
45
Case No. 97-CV-836
Regular Panel Decision

Stott v. Revere Transducers, Inc.

Plaintiff Gary A. Stott sued Defendant Revere Transducers, Inc. for breach of an employment contract, seeking $64,902.50 in damages, including severance wages, unpaid commissions, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under New York Labor Law § 198(l)(a). The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County, arguing the jurisdictional amount was not met. The court found that the defendant failed to prove by a reasonable probability that the plaintiff's claims exceeded $75,000, even after accounting for the defendant's alleged under-calculation of liquidated damages and attorney's fees. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's motion and remanded the case.

Employment Contract BreachMotion to RemandDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyLiquidated DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionRemoval ActionLabor Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

This case involves an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award, which was subsequently reversed and remanded to Special Term. The court mandated a hearing to determine two critical aspects: first, whether the arbitration contract was formed between the petitioner labor union and the respondent as an individual or on behalf of a corporate entity; and second, whether the respondent received due notice of the arbitration. The decision emphasizes that the court, not the arbitrator, must decide on the existence of a valid contract and proper notice. Furthermore, even if these conditions are met, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator to clarify the ambiguity of the award, which directed payments to unidentified individuals, rendering it imperfectly executed and not a final and definite award as required by the Civil Practice Act.

ArbitrationContract ExistenceNotice RequirementAmbiguity in AwardRemandSpecial TermLabor UnionRespondent IdentityCivil Practice ActProcedural Reversal
References
4
Case No. 196-1545-260
Regular Panel Decision

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace/Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc. (In Re Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp.)

The case involves a motion by Grace-Lansing and Grace Industries, Inc. (Grace) to remand an adversary proceeding back to the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, and for relief from an automatic stay. The Debtor, Montague Pipeline Technologies, Inc., had removed the action, which concerned the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Grace, after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Court, presided over by Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein, applied the 'Drexel factors' to evaluate the request for remand, concluding that equitable grounds favored sending the action back to state court due to efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate, predominance of state law, and comity. The Court also granted Grace's motion for relief from the automatic stay, finding 'cause' based on the 'Sonnax factors,' to allow the state court to finalize the arbitration award and fix Grace's claim, thereby facilitating the Debtor's reorganization plan.

BankruptcyRemandAutomatic StayArbitration AwardState LawFederal Arbitration ActJudicial EconomyComityChapter 11Dispute Resolution
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

T & M Meat Fair, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 174

The plaintiffs, T & M Meat Fair, Inc. and its owners, filed a class action lawsuit in New York state court against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unions and affiliated funds, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to their participation in ERISA plans. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing original jurisdiction under ERISA and LMRA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that federal jurisdiction was improper and also sought attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that federal jurisdiction was proper based on at least one claim arising under ERISA in the amended complaint, and also denied the request for attorneys' fees and costs. The court explicitly stated that Count III, asserting rights under ERISA for Milano, established federal jurisdiction.

ERISALMRARemoval JurisdictionFederal CourtState CourtRemand MotionClass ActionLabor UnionPension FundsHealth Funds
References
14
Case No. ADJ6487859
Regular
Feb 08, 2012

Carlos Lopez vs. All American Asphalt, Seabright Insurance

This case was remanded by the California Court of Appeal for reconsideration of the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in light of the *Ogilvie* decision. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award and Order of February 17, 2011, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Workers' Compensation Judge will now issue a new decision after further proceedings, applying the *Ogilvie* precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardREMANDOgilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation JudgeRESCINDEDtrial levelfurther proceedingsnew decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,912 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