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

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Amigon

Plaintiff Maria Flores sued her former employer, La Flor Bakery, for unpaid overtime wages under federal and state laws. During discovery, La Flor Bakery requested Flores' immigration documents, social security number, and passports, arguing this information was relevant to a defense based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Supreme Court decision, which it contended would preclude back pay for undocumented aliens. Flores filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that her immigration status was irrelevant to her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims and that disclosing such information would have an intimidating effect. The court, distinguishing Hoffman Plastic as applying to back pay for work not performed, found Flores' immigration status irrelevant to her claims for wages for work already completed. Consequently, the court granted Flores' motion for a protective order, concluding that the potential prejudice of disclosing her immigration status significantly outweighed any minimal probative value for the defense.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAImmigration Reform and Control ActIRCAundocumented workersback payovertime wagesprotective orderdiscoveryimmigration status
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. Putnam Valley Board of Education

This case concerns a discovery dispute in a discrimination complaint filed against the Putnam Valley Board of Education by several plaintiffs, including T.H., alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes. The core issue was whether the identity of a mandated reporter, who made a Child Protective Services (CPS) report about T.H., should be disclosed to the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed a Magistrate Judge's order compelling disclosure, asserting that New York Social Services Law mandates the confidentiality of such reporters. The District Court, balancing the state's strong interest in protecting mandated reporters to encourage child abuse reporting against the plaintiffs' need for discovery, reversed the prior order. Consequently, the court granted a protective order, prohibiting the disclosure of the reporter's identity, citing the potential chilling effect on future reporting and the plaintiffs' minimal likelihood of overcoming the reporter's immunity under state law.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderChild Protective ServicesMandated Reporter ConfidentialityNew York Social Services LawFederal Civil RightsDiscrimination AllegationChild Abuse ReportImmunityGood Faith
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosas v. Alice's Tea Cup, LLC

This Memorandum and Order addresses motions in a labor dispute brought by current and former employees against Alice’s Tea Cup, LLC and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent discovery into their immigration status, tax returns, and current employers, arguing irrelevance and undue prejudice. The court granted the protective order, finding this information irrelevant to wage claims and emphasizing the potential for intimidation. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add Lauren Fox as a defendant, Teofilio Toribio as an opt-in plaintiff, and to remove class action allegations.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertimeProtective OrderDiscoveryImmigration StatusTax ReturnsCurrent EmployerLeave to Amend
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centeno-Bernuy v. Becker Farms

Four migrant agricultural workers sued their former agricultural employers (including Melinda and Oscar Vizcarra, associated with Becker Farms) for various labor law violations and breach of contract, alleging underpayment, substandard housing, and illegal charges. During discovery, defendants sought information on the plaintiffs' post-employment residences and subsequent employment. Plaintiffs moved for a protective order, arguing the information was irrelevant and sought for harassment. The court granted the protective order, concluding that the potential for intimidation and harassment by a former owner, Donald Perry, who had a history of making inflammatory claims against the plaintiffs, outweighed any relevance of the requested information.

protective orderdiscoveryharassmentmigrant workersagricultural laborimmigration statusfederal rules of civil procedurelabor law violationsintimidationWestern District of New York
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,727 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