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

Evolution Online Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V.

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, involves claims of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and quantum meruit. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint, citing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in the Netherlands. The Second Circuit remanded to clarify whether a contract with such a clause existed and if it should be enforced, or if dismissal was appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds. The District Court affirmed that a binding contract with a mandatory Netherlands forum-selection clause existed and should be enforced due to significant partial performance and mutual intent to be bound, despite the lack of a signed document. The court also determined that even without the clause, the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, as the Netherlands offers an adequate alternative forum and is more convenient based on public and private interest factors, including the location of proof and the applicability of Dutch law.

Contract disputeCopyright infringementQuantum meruitForum-selection clauseForum non conveniensInternational litigationDutch lawNew York lawSecond Circuit remandBreach of contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp.

A plaintiff, injured on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship in January 2005, commenced an action for damages. Carnival moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in the passenger contract, which stipulated litigation in federal court in Miami or a Miami-Dade County court. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause, rejecting arguments of waiver and non-reasonable communication. It clarified that such clauses do not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction, correcting the Supreme Court's reasoning. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, denying the plaintiff's request for equitable relief under CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens), reasoning that such discretionary relief is inapplicable when dismissal is a contractual mandate rather than a discretionary decision.

Forum Selection ClauseCruise Ship ContractMaritime LawSubject Matter JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCPLR 327Forum Non ConveniensContractual EnforcementWaiver of DefenseAppellate Review
References
59
Case No. ADJ7045808
Regular
Jan 22, 2014

Ernest Conwell vs. New Orleans Saints, Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp.

This case involves a professional athlete claiming industrial injury sustained between 1996 and 2007. The defendant contested California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) jurisdiction due to a forum selection clause in the employment contract designating Louisiana as the exclusive forum. The WCAB rescinded the initial award and remanded the case for further development of the record. This is to allow reconsideration of the *McKinley* decision regarding mandatory forum selection clauses and the connection to California, particularly concerning contract formation.

WCABjurisdictionforum selection clauseemployment contractprofessional athleteindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentcontract of hireagent
References
16
Case No. ADJ6648503
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

KENYATTA WALKER vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the WCJ should have considered the enforceability of a forum selection clause in the employment contract, which dictates jurisdiction in Florida. This decision was based on a new en banc ruling establishing precedent for declining jurisdiction when such clauses exist and have a limited connection to California. The case will be re-heard to fully address the forum selection clause and its impact on jurisdiction and the applicant's claims.

WCABKenyatta WalkerTampa Bay BuccaneersACE Pacific EmployersADJ6648503Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Period
References
11
Case No. ADJ7593509
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

ELLIS WYMS vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, ACE/PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, rescinding the prior decision and returning the case for further proceedings. This action was based on the defendant's contention that a mandatory forum selection clause in the applicant's employment contracts required claims to be filed in Florida. The Appeals Board cited its en banc decision in *McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals*, which established that the central issue is whether California should enforce such a clause, not merely whether it has jurisdiction. Upon remand, both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and AwardFootball PlayerForum Selection ClauseMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsEn Banc DecisionCumulative Industrial InjuryEmployment ContractsMandatory Forum Selection
References
8
Case No. ADJ7672393
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

MAURICE WILLIAMS vs. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, USF&G, ACE INSURANCE

This case concerns Maurice Williams, a former professional football player for the Jacksonville Jaguars, who sought workers' compensation benefits in California for a cumulative injury sustained between 2001 and 2009. While a portion of his employment exposed him to California, his contracts from 2007-2011 contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all injury claims to be resolved in Florida under Florida law. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision to decline jurisdiction, finding the forum selection clause to be reasonable and binding for the latter portion of the cumulative injury period. Enforcement of the clause was not deemed unreasonable or unjust, and the applicant failed to demonstrate why California jurisdiction should be exercised despite the contractual agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJacksonville JaguarsUSF&GACE INSURANCEOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryorthopedic body partscumulative injurysubject matter jurisdictionforum selection clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motise v. America Online, Inc.

Michael V. Motise initiated this action against America Online, Inc. in March 2004, alleging unlawful disclosure of his screen name. America Online moved to dismiss or transfer the case, citing a forum selection clause in its Member Agreement mandating disputes be heard in Virginia. The court examined whether Motise, as a user accessing his step-father's account, was bound by the clause despite lacking direct notice. The court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause through a 'derivative rights theory,' establishing that Motise's access was contingent on his step-father's acceptance of the terms. Consequently, the case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Forum selection clauseDerivative rightsConstructive noticeTerms of serviceTransfer of venueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInternet lawUser agreementContract enforceabilityJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matera v. Native Eyewear, Inc.

This case involves Pasquale Matera (Plaintiff) suing Native Eyewear, Inc. (Defendant) for breach of a consulting agreement. Matera, a New York resident, alleges Native Eyewear, a Pennsylvania corporation, failed to pay royalties and provide royalty statements for design and marketing services. Native Eyewear moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing a forum selection clause in the agreement. The Court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, denied both motions. It found that personal jurisdiction over Native Eyewear existed in the Eastern District of New York under CPLR § 302(a)(1) due to the ongoing contractual relationship and Matera's services being rendered in New York for the defendant's benefit. The Court also determined that the clause in the agreement was not a mandatory forum selection clause and thus did not preclude the action in New York or necessitate a transfer.

Contract DisputeBreach of AgreementImproper VenueTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionLong-Arm StatuteForum Selection ClauseConsulting AgreementRoyalty Payments
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff GMAC Commercial Credit, LLC, filed a diversity breach of contract action against Dillard Department Stores, Inc., seeking damages for alleged unilateral discounts on invoices. The case, initially filed in New York state court, was removed to federal court by defendant Dillard. Dillard moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer, citing a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Arkansas. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, found personal jurisdiction over Dillard in New York, making venue proper there. However, the court determined that GMAC, as an assignee of the vendor Lady Carol Dresses, LLC, was bound by the forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted Dillard's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, allowing GMAC to refile in either an Arkansas state court in Pulaski County or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in accordance with the clause.

Breach of ContractVenueForum Selection ClausePersonal JurisdictionAssignee RightsUniform Commercial CodeNew York LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDismissal Without PrejudiceDiversity Jurisdiction
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,049 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