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
Oct 10, 2017

Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp.

This case involves former employees (Israel Gamero, Norberto Mastranzo, and Oscar Sanchez) suing their former employer (Koodo Sushi and Michelle Koo) for wage-and-hour and record-keeping violations under the FLSA and NYLL. Following a bench trial, the court found that while the plaintiffs had inflated their claims, the defendants failed to maintain accurate payroll records and unlawfully deducted meal and tip credits. The court awarded damages to all three plaintiffs for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and violations of NYLL wage statement requirements. Additionally, Gamero received damages for a wage notice violation, but claims related to tools of the trade and tip withholding were denied. Overall, the plaintiffs were granted relief on seven of their nine claims, albeit for a fraction of the damages originally sought.

Wage-and-Hour ViolationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime CompensationTip CreditMeal CreditRecord Keeping ViolationsWage Statement ViolationsLiquidated Damages
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union ex rel. Alvarez v. Feinstein

The case involves an action brought by Cap Makers Union, Local 2H, against former officers Michael Feinstein and Luz Rivera, seeking to prevent them from using a similar name for a rival union. Initially filed in New York State court based on state business law and common law, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal district court, presided over by Judge Sweet, sua sponte remanded the action back to state court. The court found that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a federal cause of action, and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is insufficient for removal. The court also denied Local 2H's request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants for improper removal.

Federal jurisdictionRemoval actionRemandState law claimsFederal questionNational Labor Relations ActPreemption defenseTrade name disputeUnion disputeCosts and sanctions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a class action settlement in an FLSA and NYLL case against Sushi Yasuda. Plaintiffs, former wait staff, alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread of hours premiums, and gratuities. The parties reached a $2.4 million class-wide settlement, which the court grants final approval for. However, the court reduces the requested attorney's fees from $800,000 to $480,000, citing issues with inflated hourly rates and a need for greater judicial scrutiny in class action settlements. Additionally, the application for separate service awards for Class Representatives is denied, as their increased share in the settlement fund is deemed sufficient compensation.

Wage and HourFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesService AwardsJudicial ScrutinyLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund Method
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2012

Gunawan v. Sake Sushi Restaurant

Plaintiff Fanny "Fei Fei" Gunawan sued Sake Sushi Restaurant, Inc. for federal and state wage violations, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The defendant defaulted after completing discovery and dispositive motion practice. U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein granted Gunawan's motion for default judgment, finding the restaurant liable for unpaid minimum wages, unlawful tip deductions, unpaid overtime, and "spread-of-hours" compensation. The court applied the FLSA's three-year statute of limitations due to willful violations but denied equitable tolling for claims prior to November 16, 2006. Gunawan was awarded a total judgment of $68,431.84, encompassing various damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Wage and Hour ClaimsFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid Minimum WagesOvertime CompensationTip DeductionsSpread-of-Hours PayDefault JudgmentWillful ViolationsStatute of Limitations
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maisel v. Sigman

Plaintiffs, Maisel & Co., a manufacturing jobber, initiated an action against the Joint Board of Cloak, Skirt, Dress and Reefer Makers’ Union and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. They sought to invalidate a contract signed on July 5, 1923, alleging it was procured under duress and violated anti-monopoly and Penal Laws, besides lacking mutuality. The contract arose from a labor dispute and a strike after Maisel & Co. attempted to reorganize its business, leading to reduced in-house manufacturing and increased reliance on subcontractors. The court, presided over by Burr, J., meticulously reviewed the negotiations leading to the agreement and the subsequent actions of the plaintiffs, concluding that duress was not established. Furthermore, the court analyzed the contract's provisions against claims of illegality, finding that it did not create an illegal monopoly or violate labor laws, asserting workers' rights to combine and negotiate terms. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the agreement, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, and granted judgment in favor of the defendants.

Contract disputeLabor disputeUnion agreementDuress defenseCoercionAnti-monopoly lawPenal law violationRestraint of tradeCollective bargainingStrike action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 1991

Drumm v. Bainton

The plaintiff sustained accidental injuries on November 7, 1986, while working for Party Makers, a catering business operated by defendants John Bainton and Stacy Gerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's injuries occurred during her employment with Party Makers, Inc., a corporation with workers' compensation insurance. The plaintiff cross-moved, claiming Party Makers, Inc. was dissolved and its insurance policy void. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a mere misstatement of the insured's ownership form, which did not affect the risk or employee protection, did not invalidate the workers' compensation coverage, thus barring a common law action.

Summary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCorporate DissolutionInsurance Coverage DisputeAccidental Injury ClaimProprietorship vs CorporationAppellate ReviewCommon Law Action BarredMisstatement of InsuredWorkers' Compensation Exclusivity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. ADJ7504787
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

DORIEL RAMOS vs. HIBACHI SUSHI \& GRILL, FIRST COMP LTD.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing a lien claim. The lien claimant had paid the lien activation fee by check prior to the conference, but the check had not yet cleared, and the WCJ dismissed the lien. The Appeals Board found that payment was tendered before the conference and proof was presented, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeWCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien conferenceLabor Code section 4903.06Proof of paymentDismissal with prejudiceEAMSDue process
References
0
Case No. ADJ9888698 ADJ9888716
Regular
Jun 19, 2017

YI HE vs. MANDARIN CHINESE FOOD AND SUSHI, AMTRUST SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed an order reinstating a Compromise and Release settlement. The defendant sought to deduct additional permanent disability advances beyond what was initially approved, claiming a mutual mistake. However, the Board found the discrepancy to be a unilateral mistake by the defendant, who drafted the agreement and failed to prove applicant's knowledge or exploitation of the error. Consequently, the Board ordered the reinstatement of the original settlement, amended only to correct a clerical omission of a case number.

Permanent Disability AdvancesCompromise and ReleaseUnilateral MistakeReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescission of ContractEquitable CreditUnjust EnrichmentOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 35 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