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. MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

Koch v. Hicks

This Opinion and Order addresses a motion for class certification within a Multi-District Litigation concerning groundwater contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from a gasoline station. Plaintiffs sought to certify two subclasses: a Homeowner Subclass and a Medical Monitoring Subclass, bringing claims under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability. The court granted certification for the Homeowner Subclass, finding it satisfied all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and was maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1). However, the motion for certification of the Medical Monitoring Subclass was denied, with the court concluding that medical monitoring constitutes a form of damages under Maryland law rather than a distinct cause of action. The court also clarified that, in the context of class certification within MDL, the law of the transferor circuit (Fourth Circuit) applies over the transferee circuit (Second Circuit), following the Supreme Court's decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

Class ActionClass CertificationMulti-District LitigationRule 23MTBE ContaminationGroundwater ContaminationUnderground Storage TanksEnvironmental LawToxic TortHomeowner Subclass
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Crouse Health System, Inc.

Named plaintiff Marianne Meyers brought this action against Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. and other entities, alleging violations of FLSA, ERISA, and NYLL regarding uncompensated work time, specifically concerning automatic meal break deductions and other pay policies. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss eight opt-in plaintiffs from the FLSA collective action, while plaintiff moved to certify NYLL and ERISA claims as a class action. The court granted defendants' motion, dismissing seven opt-in plaintiffs who admitted they did not work through meal breaks without compensation, finding them outside the conditionally certified FLSA class. The court also granted class certification for Subclass I (Meal Break Deduction Class) under Rule 23(b)(3) but denied certification for Subclass II (Pre and Postliminary Work Class) due to a lack of numerosity, and for Subclass IV (ERISA Class) due to insufficient evidence. Thomas & Solomon LLP was appointed as class counsel for Subclass I, and the matter was referred back to Magistrate Judge David Peebles for further pretrial proceedings, with the court also affirming the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims.

FLSA Collective ActionERISA Class ActionNYLL Wage and HourClass CertificationMeal Break DeductionsUncompensated WorkSummary Judgment GrantedSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23 PrerequisitesNumerosity Challenge
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an action by construction workers seeking to recover prevailing wages under public works contracts from defendant Kel-Tech. The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order on November 9, 2005, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify certain subclasses and to amend the complaint to add new class representatives. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The denial of subclass certification was based on the failure to demonstrate that Kel-Tech performed work on the projects, or that the named plaintiffs worked on them, or that an agreement requiring prevailing wages existed. The motion to amend the complaint was denied due to the plaintiffs' inability to show that the proposed individuals would adequately protect the interests of the excluded subclasses.

Prevailing wagesPublic works contractsClass actionSubclass certificationComplaint amendmentClass representativesAppellate reviewCPLR 901AffirmedConstruction workers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. City of New York

This Memorandum & Order addresses the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes on an ongoing employment discrimination class action. The court denies the City's motion to decertify the liability-phase class and Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion for summary judgment on classwide compensatory damages for noneconomic losses. It certifies non-hire and delayed-hire victim subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for common remedial-phase issues, finding individual questions related to noneconomic losses too prominent for classwide determination. The court also decertifies the Noneconomic Loss Subclass and modifies the Injunctive Relief Subclass by adding new representatives.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Class CertificationSubclass CertificationRemedial PhaseCompensatory Damages
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. Appellants, Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc., and Dentisoft, Inc. (collectively 'Easy Dental'), were sued by dentists (appellees) who alleged defective dental office management software. The claims included breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act. The trial court certified two subclasses: a 'Windows subclass' and a 'DOS subclass'. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that common issues of law and fact predominated, Texas law was correctly applied in the choice-of-law analysis, and the class representatives met the typicality and adequacy of representation requirements.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealSoftware DefectsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationPromissory EstoppelDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
36
Case No. Docket No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

The plaintiffs, a subclass of retirees and surviving spouses from Caterpillar Logistics Services (CLS), filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Caterpillar, Inc. They sought to enjoin Caterpillar from charging premiums and making other modifications to their retiree health care benefits, arguing they had a vested right to no-cost benefits under the 1988 Group Insurance Plan (GIP) and the CLS Agreement. The court found the CLS Agreement extended the 1988 labor contract for the subclass, providing vested lifetime no-cost retiree benefits, and that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm from rising medical costs. Concluding that the factors weighed heavily in favor of the plaintiffs and rejecting Caterpillar's affirmative defenses, the court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering Caterpillar to provide the CLS subclass with the same level of retiree healthcare as pre-1992 retirees, without premiums or new deductibles/co-pays.

Preliminary InjunctionRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Contract InterpretationEquitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsCaterpillar Logistics Services (CLS)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2011

Hamelin v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare

Plaintiffs Dawn Hamelin, Rakiesha Griffin, and Julie Flint brought a collective action against Faxton-St. Luke’s Healthcare and other entities, alleging violations of the FLSA, ERISA, and NYLL related to uncompensated meal breaks and pre/post-shift work. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing eight opt-in plaintiffs who did not claim to have worked through meal breaks without compensation. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted for Subclass I, the 'Meal Break Deduction Class,' finding that common questions predominated and a class action was the superior method. However, certification was denied for Subclass II (pre/post-shift work) due to lack of commonality predominance and Subclass IV (ERISA claims) due to insufficient evidence. The court also appointed Thomas & Solomon LLP as class counsel.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionCollective ActionMeal Break DeductionsUnpaid WagesSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.D. v. Perry

This case involves minor children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) who filed a class action alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The plaintiffs claim that systemic deficiencies, including overburdened caseworkers, inadequate oversight of foster care placements, and an unsuitable placement array (such as foster group homes and General Residential Operations for basic care children), expose them to an unreasonable risk of harm. The court granted class certification in part, establishing a General Class and three subclasses: Licensed Foster Care, Foster Group Home, and Basic Care GRO. The Unverified Kinship Subclass was not certified at this time due to issues with named representatives, and the court allowed for the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint to address this.

Child WelfareFoster Care SystemClass Action LitigationFourteenth AmendmentSubstantive Due ProcessCaseworker WorkloadsPlacement ArrayTexas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS)Constitutional RightsJudicial Oversight
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vuyanich v. Republic National Bank of Dallas

The Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a complex class action suit against Republic National Bank for race and sex discrimination under Title VII, brought by plaintiffs Joan Ranee Vuyanich and Ellen Johnson. The court delves into the requirements of Article III standing and Rule 23 for class certification, focusing on commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Due to potential conflicts of interest and to ensure fair representation, the court orders the creation of multiple subclasses for employees and applicants based on exempt/nonexempt status and race/sex. Additionally, the order rules on motions for intervention, granting some new class representatives and denying others, while also partially decertifying one proposed subclass. The decision outlines the framework for proceeding with the litigation, emphasizing the procedural aspects of class actions in discrimination cases.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIRule 23StandingTypicalityCommonalityAdequacy of Representation
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 28 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