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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. ADJ2710071 (STK 0215121)
Regular
Sep 11, 2017

WILLIAM FORD vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Gallo Glass Company's Petition for Removal. Gallo Glass sought disqualification of the administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging prejudice based on the WCJ's recommendation to deny their reimbursement request. The WCAB found that Gallo Glass failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal under Labor Code section 5310. Furthermore, the petition did not meet the procedural requirements for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311, lacking the necessary sworn affidavit detailing the grounds for bias.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationAgreed Medical ExaminerReimbursementWCJ prejudiceLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
1
Case No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

21948, LLC v. Riaz

The petitioner in this commercial nonpayment proceeding sought to dispense with a nonmilitary affidavit and obtain a final judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction against the respondent tenant. The court, presided over by Justice Paul G. Feinman, denied the motion without prejudice. The denial was based on the petitioner's insufficient efforts to verify the respondent's nonmilitary status, failing to meet the requirements of the United States Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act and the New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1951. The court instructed the petitioner to provide a supplemental affidavit detailing further investigative steps, including additional visits to the premises, review of lease documents for contact information, and direct inquiries with the military.

Commercial nonpaymentNonmilitary affidavitSoldiers and Sailors Civil Relief ActMilitary statusDue diligenceEvictionCivil procedureMotion renewalNew York lawAffidavit requirements
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1997

Pidgeon v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff, a plumber for Metro-North Commuter Railroad, was injured after slipping on a wet staircase at the Hastings-on-Hudson station. He alleged negligence under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), claiming water accumulated due to a recurring leak in the roof, of which the defendant had notice. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of negligence and notice. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiff's expert and coworker affidavits provided sufficient evidence to create triable issues of fact regarding the leaky roof and the defendant's constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments concerning the late submission of affidavits, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

FELARailroad negligencePremises liabilitySlip and fallConstructive noticeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewLeaky roofStaircase accidentWorker injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.

Martin Guillen sued Marshalls for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, alleging that as an Assistant Store Manager (ASM), he and other ASMs primarily performed non-managerial duties despite their exempt classification. He sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, reviewed affidavits from Guillen and other ASMs detailing their duties, as well as counter-affidavits from Marshalls. The court denied Guillen's motion for a nationwide collective action, citing insufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that ASMs across all 820 Marshalls stores nationwide were similarly situated in performing primarily non-exempt tasks. However, the denial was without prejudice to a future application for a more limited class.

FLSAOvertime WagesConditional CertificationCollective ActionAssistant Store ManagerEmployee MisclassificationExempt EmployeeNon-exempt EmployeeManagerial DutiesNon-Managerial Duties
References
41
Case No. ADJ1775896 (RDG 0101688), ADJ2010679 (RDG 0104042)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

RICHARD SEILER vs. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Richard Seiler, petitioned to recuse the judge, alleging prejudice and improper rulings on evidence and medical treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the applicant's filings and the judge's report. The WCAB denied the disqualification petition, finding no evidence of bias. The applicant will have the opportunity to raise these issues at trial and, if necessary, file a petition for reconsideration.

Recusal petitionJudge JonesLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Chiropractic QMEExclusion of evidencePrescribing physicianHormone replacementMandatory settlement conferencePetition for reconsideration
References
0
Case No. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 3,047 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