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. ADJ6876456
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

MARILYN BROWN vs. COLLECTCORP CORPORATION, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the order it challenged. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for removal. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code $\S 5405$JurisdictionDue ProcessFinal OrderTimelinessCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mira v. Kingston

Plaintiff Leslie Moore Mira, proceeding pro se, filed a claim under Title VII against her former employer Platts/McGraw Hill Financial, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging retaliation for speaking out against sexual harassment, leading to a racially hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and persistent post-employment harassment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred. The court found Plaintiff's federal claims were indeed time-barred as she failed to file an administrative charge within the requisite 300 days. Consequently, the Title VII claims against the individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice as Title VII claims only apply to employers, and the federal claims against Platts were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state and local law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingPro Se LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ7226408
Regular
Feb 16, 2012

Robert Thompson vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

Defendant Vons sought removal and reconsideration of a WCJ's order authorizing applicant's attorney to accept $3,000 for a diminished future earning capacity expert. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights, nor was defendant directly aggrieved. The petition for removal was also dismissed as untimely regarding the reservation of jurisdiction in a prior award and because defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Ultimately, both the Petition for Removal and Petition for Reconsideration were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC ExpertOgilvie IssueJurisdiction ReservedInterlocutory Order
References
7
Case No. ADJ10249111
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

Steven R. Crosby vs. DWB Security Services

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order dismissing the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) without prejudice. The Board treated this as a petition for removal, granted it, and rescinded the dismissal order. This action was taken due to the potential for significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the applicant, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation that the UEBTF was improperly dismissed.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderFinal OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiff Patricia Harris Lee sued her former employer, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, Inc., and her supervisor, Barbara Warnock-Morgan, for alleged discrimination and retaliation based on disability, race, and national origin, alongside a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lee claimed constructive termination, a hostile work environment, and refusal to accommodate her disability following a physical altercation with Warnock-Morgan. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed certain claims with prejudice, including all Title VII and ADA claims against Warnock-Morgan, the national origin discrimination claim under Section 1981, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Disability discrimination claims under the ADA, state, and local law, as well as retaliation claims, were dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient pleading. The court denied the motion to dismiss the race discrimination claims in employment, termination, and hostile work environment under Title VII, state, and local law, granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

Disability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEmployment LawFederal CourtADA ClaimsTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 Claims
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neck-Wear Contractors Ass'n

The defendant, Slate Belt, moved to vacate a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff, the Government, under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Slate Belt argued the dismissal was not at an 'early stage' and would cause prejudice, despite never having filed an answer. The court found that no joinder of issue occurred, and the merits of the controversy were never presented or passed upon by the court. Extended private negotiations between the parties regarding a proposed decree were not considered the equivalent of an answer or court action on the merits, nor did incurred legal fees constitute sufficient prejudice. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was within its rights to file the voluntary dismissal, and the defendant's motion to vacate was denied.

Voluntary dismissalRule 41(a)(1)(i)Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureSherman ActJoinder of issuePrejudiceMeritsNegotiationsDistrict CourtMotion practice
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 14,125 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