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. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Jan 20, 2012

Applicant vs. Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Daniel Escamilla's Petition for Change of Venue, denied his Request for an Immediate Stay, but granted his Petition for Removal. The decision affirmed the relieving of his counsel and continued the hearing to provide a final opportunity to obtain new counsel.

Petition for Change of VenuePetition for RemovalRequest for Immediate Stay of ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Relief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal NatureLabor Code Section 5501.6Labor Code Section 4907
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between J. K. Welding Co. & International Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

In a legal proceeding, an appellant sought to obtain a stay of an arbitration. The arbitration concerned the alleged discharge of three employees, a matter that purportedly violated the seniority provisions outlined in a collective bargaining agreement between the appellant and the respondent union. The court affirmed the order that denied the appellant's request for a stay of the arbitration proceedings, and awarded $10 in costs and disbursements.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsEmployee TerminationStay of ProceedingsLabor DisputeUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewContract ViolationJudicial Affirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re General Motors Corp.

This Bench Decision addresses motions for § 158(d)(2) certification to the Circuit and, alternatively, for a stay pending appeal of a July 5 Order in the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and its affiliates. Presiding Judge Robert E. Gerber denied both motions, finding the conditions for direct appeal to the Circuit were not met due to controlling precedent in the Second Circuit and the lack of a question of public importance that had not already been decided. Regarding the stay request, the court determined that the movants failed to establish a substantial possibility of success on the merits. Granting a stay would inflict catastrophic and irreparable harm upon GM, its multitude of creditors, 225,000 employees, 500,000 retirees, 11,500 suppliers, 6,000 dealers, and the broader North American auto industry, outweighing any potential harm to the appellants. The decision emphasized the critical public interest in allowing GM's essential asset sale to proceed without delay to avoid immediate liquidation.

Bankruptcy AppealSection 158(d)(2) CertificationRule 8005 StayEquitable Mootness DoctrineSuccessor LiabilityPublic Interest FactorsIrreparable HarmCorporate LiquidationCreditors' CommitteeJudicial Discretion
References
14
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Jan 20, 2012

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismisses a petition for change of venue, denies a request for a stay, but grants a petition for removal. The Board affirms the order relieving the petitioner's counsel, continues the hearing, and sets a new pre-hearing conference schedule to allow the petitioner a final opportunity to obtain new counsel and prepare his case.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRelief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal ProceedingDelegation of AuthorityOffer of ProofSuspension or Removal of Privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union of America

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) suspended employee Marvin Moses after he drove a bus with a suspended license. The appellant union, on behalf of Moses, filed a grievance asserting Moses was entitled to a determination whether his suspension was for cause, arguing his license suspension was in error and he was not properly notified. After the grievance procedure, the union demanded arbitration. The NYCTA commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable because it involved enforcing statutory obligations under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the broad arbitration provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement encompassed the dispute and that the arbitrability of such issues was for the arbitrator to determine.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureEmployment SuspensionVehicle and Traffic LawCPLR Article 75ArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
8
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Steen v. Musch

This case involves a special proceeding initiated by Steven Von Steen and Von Steen Asset Management, Inc. (petitioners) against their client Elisabeth Musch (respondent) to stay an arbitration. Musch had filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, alleging significant investment losses due to unsuitable recommendations, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that Musch's claims were time-barred and that punitive damages were not an arbitrable issue. The court, referencing federal arbitration law and Supreme Court precedents like Howsam and Mastrobuono, denied the petition, ruling that the issues of statute of limitations and punitive damages were to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. The proceeding was dismissed, and all stays were lifted.

arbitrationinvestment disputestatute of limitationspunitive damagesFederal Arbitration ActCPLR 7502CPLR 7503securities lawinvestment managementfiduciary duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insta-Bulk, Inc. v. Powertex Inc.

Powertex, Inc. sought to hold Insta-Bulk, Inc. in contempt for allegedly violating a 1983 injunction by selling patented products outside of agreed-upon territories. Insta-Bulk moved to dismiss the contempt motion, arguing the injunction was inapplicable due to an existing license agreement, or alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration as per the license agreement. The District Court denied Insta-Bulk's motion to dismiss the contempt application, stating that the applicability of the injunction depended on whether Insta-Bulk's actions were authorized by the license. However, the court granted Insta-Bulk's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the dispute over sales authorization fell under the license agreement's arbitration clause. The court also clarified that arbitration obligations can survive contract expiration, citing Supreme Court precedent.

ContemptInjunctionPatent InfringementLicense AgreementArbitrationStay of ProceedingsContract DisputeFederal CourtSettlement AgreementJurisdiction
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,044 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