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. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alternative Electrodes, LLC v. Empi, Inc.

Plaintiff Alternative Electrodes, LLC (AEL) sued Empi, Inc. and Encore Medical, L.P. for violations of the Lanham Act, Sherman Act, and various New York state laws, including illegal monopoly, false advertising, and tortious interference. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except the Lanham Act claim. The court denied dismissal for AEL's Sherman Act, Donnelly Act, and breach of contract claims, finding sufficient allegations of antitrust injury, market definition, and breach of a settlement agreement. However, the state law claims for business disparagement/injurious falsehood and tortious interference were dismissed without prejudice, as AEL failed to adequately plead special damages and 'but for' causation, respectively. The civil conspiracy claim, alleged as an independent tort, was also dismissed.

Antitrust LawSherman ActLanham ActBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Monopoly Power
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abax Services Corp. v. Local 78 Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

The defendants, Local 78 Asbestos, Lead and Hazardous Waste Laborers, AFL-CIO and Sal Speziale, appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss certain causes of action. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were not preempted by Federal law, thus affirming the denial of dismissal on that ground. However, the court determined that the third cause of action, based on an alleged Donnelly Act violation, failed to properly identify co-conspirators. Consequently, this specific cause of action was dismissed, with leave for the plaintiff to replead. The order was modified and affirmed.

Tortious Interference with ContractDonnelly ActFederal PreemptionMotion to DismissLeave to RepleadAppellate ReviewLabor LawCivil ProcedurePleading RequirementsCo-Conspirators
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynolds v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union sought leave to intervene in an action initiated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking injunctive relief against unnamed respondents for alleged unfair labor practices. The NLRB opposed the union's application. The court denied the motion, ruling that the right to seek temporary injunctive relief under the National Labor Relations Act is exclusive to the Board and not available to private litigants. The decision further clarified that the union did not possess an independent right to claim relief in the district court, nor would it be bound by the judgment, and its interests were adequately represented by the expert NLRB, thus failing to meet the criteria for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

InterventionNational Labor Relations ActInjunctive ReliefNLRBFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24Labor LawDistrict CourtTemporary ReliefCharging Party
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tannenbaum v. Hofbauer

The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of their complaint, which sought damages for an alleged assault and battery perpetrated by unidentified men acting under the direction of Powers, a business agent of the defendant union during a strike. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the tortious act was committed by a union agent in furtherance of the strike. However, there was no evidence of official union authorization for the act, nor was the agent's unlawful activity sufficiently notorious or prolonged to infer knowledge and acquiescence from the union membership. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that to hold a voluntary, unincorporated association liable, facts must prove all members are liable, either through a public act of the association or member-approved acts of its agents. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to bind the entire union membership, requiring clear and convincing evidence to identify the union with the individual acts. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

Assault and BatteryUnion LiabilityAgency LawVoluntary Unincorporated AssociationMembership LiabilityStrike ActionTortious ActDismissal of ComplaintMotion PracticeEvidence Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marley v. Ibelli

J. Craig Marley, a former employee of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, sued his co-workers, Juliette Ibelli and Cordelia Rose, for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contract. The defendants, federal employees of the Smithsonian Institution, removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant and to dismiss the claims. The court granted the substitution, finding the co-workers acted within the scope of employment. It then dismissed the assault, battery, and tortious interference claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional torts exception, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the outrageous conduct standard. Marley's motions to remand and amend his complaint were denied.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCAWestfall ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentIntentional Torts ExceptionAssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious Interference with Contract
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betz v. Legal Aid Society

Plaintiff Gerard G. Betz was terminated from his employment with The Legal Aid Society after declining a new position following a departmental restructuring. He filed a lawsuit alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), New York State’s Human Rights Law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), along with state law claims for tortious discharge, breach of oral contract, and breach of implied written contract. The court dismissed the ADEA claim as procedurally barred due to untimely filing, and the ERISA claim because vacation/annual leave funds were from general assets, not a separate benefit plan. Additionally, the tortious discharge and implied contract claims were rejected under New York's at-will employment doctrine, and the oral contract claim failed due to lack of express authority for lifetime employment. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted on all counts.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentERISA ClaimsNew York Human Rights LawOral Contract BreachImplied Contract BreachAt-Will Employment DoctrineProcedural BarFederal Jurisdiction
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 3,728 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