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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Popular Ford Sales, Inc.

Klem, a former employee of Popular Ford Sales, Inc., brought a disability discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer and supervisor, Brian Goodman. Klem alleged she was terminated due to a perceived disability (a severe headache) and retaliated against for filing an EEOC complaint. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Klem failed to provide sufficient evidence that her headache constituted a "perceived disability" under the ADA, as it did not significantly restrict her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. Additionally, her retaliation claims regarding an adverse employment reference and a "poison pen letter" were dismissed due to lack of evidence of adverse employment action or publication. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPerceived DisabilityMajor Life Activity (Working)Employment LawEEOC ComplaintAdverse Employment ActionEastern District of New York
References
20
Case No. 05-15-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

J&M Sales of Texas, LLC v. Anette H. Sams

Anette H. Sams sued J&M Sales of Texas, LLC for negligence after sustaining an injury from a falling shelf in a retail store. Sams secured a default judgment for $45,350.79 against J&M Sales. J&M Sales subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting that their failure to file an answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that they possessed a meritorious defense based on Sams's potential contributory negligence, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Sams. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that J&M Sales had successfully met all three elements of the Craddock standard for granting a new trial, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Negligence ClaimDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock StandardMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. H.O. Penn MacHinery Co.

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. (Truck Sales) initiated a lawsuit in state court against H.O. Penn Machinery Co. and Caterpillar, Inc., asserting several claims, including one under the Federal Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act. The case was subsequently removed to federal court by H.O. Penn, and both defendants filed motions to dismiss. Truck Sales later withdrew its federal claim and moved for the case to be remanded to state court. The District Court, after considering principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and relevant precedents like United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, decided to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Given the prompt withdrawal of the sole federal claim, the court determined that remanding the case to the New York State Supreme Court was appropriate in the interest of comity and judicial economy.

Federal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemandFederal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court ActContract DisputeState Law ClaimsJudicial EconomyComityWithdrawal of Federal ClaimMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. Docket No. 74
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiff Electronic Trading Group L.L.C. (ETG) filed a class action alleging that various financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, engaged in an antitrust conspiracy related to short sale transactions by fixing borrowing fees and not enforcing delivery of shorted securities. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that federal securities laws implicitly precluded antitrust claims. The Court, applying the Credit Suisse Secs. (USA) LLC v. Billing framework, found that the short sale market is an area squarely within securities regulation with active SEC oversight. It concluded there was a serious conflict between applying antitrust and securities laws, as it could deter lawful conduct and interfere with SEC policy regarding failure-to-deliver. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the antitrust claim with prejudice and dismissed the related state law claims without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSecurities RegulationShort SalesClass ActionMotion to DismissImplicit PreclusionSherman ActRegulation SHOFiduciary DutyUnjust Enrichment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacHinery Sales Co. v. Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC

Machinery Sales Co., Inc. filed an action for rescission of a contract to purchase a chip mill, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC, Columbia Trading, Inc., and Champion International Corporation regarding the mill's value and included items. Following a bench trial, the court found no fraud and entered judgment for the defendants. Machinery Sales appealed, presenting issues concerning fraudulent inducement, agency imputation, entitlement to rescission, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that defendants did not fraudulently induce the contract.

Rescission of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationChip Mill SaleContract DisputeBench TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentTennessee LawReal Estate AppraisalAgency Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wu Winfred Huang v. EZCORP, Inc.

This case involves a securities fraud class action brought by Co-Lead Plaintiffs Wu Winfred Huang and John Rooney against EZCORP, Inc. and its CFO, Mark Kuchenrither. Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants made material misrepresentations to shareholders regarding EZCORP’s financial results, specifically concerning the accounting for the sale of non-performing loans (Loan Sales) and the failure to properly account for Grupo Finmart’s non-performing payroll loans, in violation of federal securities laws. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that plaintiffs adequately pled a strong inference of scienter against Kuchenrither based on the Loan Sales, but failed to do so regarding the Non-Performing Loans.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissScienterAccounting MisrepresentationsGAAP ViolationsInternal ControlsLoan SalesNon-Performing LoansPSLRA
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,293 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