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

In Re Pavilion Place Associates

The case concerns a motion to transfer the Chapter 11 bankruptcy venue of Pavilion Place Associates, a Connecticut limited partnership, from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The debtor's sole asset is a shopping center in Roseville, Minnesota. While the debtor's principal place of business, managerial decisions, and financial planning are in New York, the motion was brought by the Trustees of the Central Pension Fund, who are secured creditors. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Tina L. Brozman, acknowledged that venue was proper in New York. However, considering factors like the location of the assets, the proximity of the majority of creditors to Minnesota, and the need for economic and efficient administration of the estate, the court granted the motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. The decision emphasized that improved real estate cases are often better administered in the district where the property is located.

Venue TransferBankruptcy Chapter 11Principal Place of BusinessInterest of JusticeConvenience of PartiesSingle Asset Real EstateShopping CenterSecured DebtUnsecured CreditorsJudicial Discretion
References
18
Case No. 12-12900-scc
Regular Panel Decision

In re Patriot Coal Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses motions to transfer the Chapter 11 cases of Patriot Coal Corporation and its ninety-eight affiliated debtors from the Southern District of New York. The Debtors established venue in New York by forming two New York entities solely for that purpose shortly before their filing. While acknowledging no bad faith, the Court found that this "literal compliance" violated the spirit and purpose of the venue statute. The motions to transfer were granted, but not to the Southern District of West Virginia as sought by several movants. Instead, the Court ordered the transfer of the cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, citing the location of Patriot's corporate headquarters, records, management, and its accessibility for a broader range of stakeholders including retirees in the Illinois Basin.

BankruptcyChapter 11Venue TransferCorporate RestructuringCoal Mining IndustryAffiliate Venue RuleSubstance Over Form DoctrineJudicial EconomyCreditor InterestsLabor Union
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Connor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the defendant’s motion to transfer a personal injury action from Bronx County to Nassau County. The plaintiff had initially placed venue in Bronx County based on his alleged residence at the time of commencement in December 1994. However, discovery revealed that Workers’ Compensation documents indicated the plaintiff had changed his address to Suffern, Rockland County, in July 1994, meaning he did not reside in Bronx County when the action was commenced. The defendant subsequently moved to transfer the action, citing the plaintiff's true residence and the inconvenience to material witnesses of a trial in Bronx County. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff resided in Rockland County at the time the action commenced and that the defendant had promptly moved to change venue after ascertaining the plaintiff’s actual residence.

Personal InjuryVenue TransferChange of VenueAppellate ReviewCPLRResidence DisputeWorkers' Compensation DocumentsNassau County Supreme CourtBronx CountyRockland County
References
2
Case No. ADJ7872929
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

SAMUEL FRANCO vs. JCT COMPANY, INC.; FIRSTCOMP OMAHA, ENDURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the appealed order was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's alternative Petition for Removal, recognizing significant prejudice to the applicant due to the inconvenience and cost of appearing at the Long Beach District Office. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the case transferred to the Van Nuys District Office for venue. The WCAB also cautioned the applicant's attorney regarding the inappropriate filing of a reconsideration petition on a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalPetition to Change of VenueWCJCumulative Industrial InjuryDelivery DriverLower ExtremitiesBackHipHernia
References
13
Case No. ADJ4019843
Regular
Oct 24, 2009

HENRYCE WOODARD vs. HIGHLANDER CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

This case involves a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially filed in Los Angeles, where her attorney is located, but the defendant objected, arguing venue should be in Riverside where the injury occurred and the applicant resided. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's removal petition, rescinded the prior order changing venue to San Diego, and instead ordered venue transferred to Riverside.

RemovalVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5501.5Labor Code § 5501.6WCAB Rule 10410Industrial InjuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimChange of VenueRiverside County
References
1
Case No. ADJ7671197, ADJ7148461
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

RICO LAZZERESCHI vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and defendant concerning a November 9, 2016, Findings and Award related to industrial injuries sustained in 2009 and 2010. The Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as skeletal, finding they failed to meet procedural requirements for specificity and record citation. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion to transfer venue for one of the cases to the San Francisco District Office, agreeing with the WCJ's findings on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilitySupplemental Job Displacement VoucherPetition for Reconsiderationskeletal petitionremovalvenue transferWCJ Report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & L BIRCHWOOD, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, S & L Birchwood, LLC and S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC, filed a breach of contract action against LFC Capital, Inc., following a dispute over a medical equipment lease. LFC alleged default, and S&L initiated a declaratory judgment action in New York state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court. LFC moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, citing a forum-selection clause in their agreement. The court analyzed the enforceability of the clause, determining it to be mandatory due to language of 'irrevocable submission' to Illinois jurisdiction, despite not explicitly using 'must' or 'may'. Consequently, the court denied LFC's motion to dismiss but granted the request for transfer, concluding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York and that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois was warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Forum selection clauseBreach of contractDiversity jurisdictionTransfer of venueDismissal motionIllinois contract lawNew York jurisdictionMedical equipment leasingMandatory clause interpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
References
14
Case No. ADJ7106903
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

DAVID CONNOR vs. RESTAURANTS TO YOU/CAFÉ RUNNER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This order transfers venue for Case No. ADJ7106903, involving David Connor and Restaurants To You/Café Runner, from the San Luis Obispo District Office to the Santa Barbara Satellite Office. The transfer is necessitated by both parties exercising their challenges under Appeals Board Rule 10453, leaving no available judges in San Luis Obispo. The Presiding Judge in Santa Barbara will schedule the matter for trial upon receipt.

Venue transferAppeals Board rule 10453Challenge of judgePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeSanta Barbara Satellite OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSetting for trialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRestaurants to YouCafe Runner
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 847 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