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

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a securities class action against SLM Corporation. Initially, Westchester Capital Management, Inc. was appointed, but its Article III standing was questioned following a Second Circuit ruling in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, which clarified that investment advisors without a valid assignment of claims lack standing. The court denied Westchester Capital's subsequent motion to approve a post-appointment assignment, reasoning it would not cure the initial lack of standing and presented unique legal issues for the class. Consequently, the court considered other movants for lead plaintiff, ultimately appointing SLM Venture, a joint venture with the largest financial interest, finding it satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 23. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP was approved as lead counsel for SLM Venture.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffArticle III StandingInvestment AdvisorAssignment of ClaimsPSLRARule 23Typicality RequirementAdequacy RequirementSecond Circuit Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattaldi v. Beth Israel Medical Center

At the time of an attack on the plaintiff, she was an employee of the defendant hospital. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The motion court denied the motion, finding the plaintiff was not in the course of her employment. However, this court determined that the threshold question of whether the plaintiff was in the course of her employment must first be decided by the Workers’ Compensation Board, as courts cannot circumvent this body for factual or mixed questions of fact and law. Resolution of the workers’ compensation issue is crucial for determining the plaintiff's standing to pursue a tort action, thus other aspects of the defendants’ motion must await this determination.

Workers' Compensation BoardSummary Judgment DenialCourse of Employment DeterminationJurisdictional DisputeExclusive Remedy DoctrineTort vs. Workers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionAppellate DivisionJudicial DeferenceStanding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2009

National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Postal Service

Two labor unions, NALC and APWU, representing postal employees, sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) and its Office of Inspector General (OIG). The unions alleged that the defendants implemented an unlawful policy of obtaining employees' personal medical information from healthcare providers without their knowledge or consent, violating HIPAA, the Privacy Act, and constitutional privacy rights, as well as the Fourth Amendment. The USPS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of associational standing and failure to state a claim. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss in both respects, ruling that the unions had associational standing as the claims raised purely legal questions, and that the "ultra vires" claim was plausible.

Labor UnionsPostal EmployeesMedical PrivacyHIPAAPrivacy ActFourth AmendmentAssociational StandingMotion to DismissGovernment OversightInformation Disclosure
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc.

American Standard, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in state court against OakFabeo, Inc., seeking a declaration of OakFabeo's direct liability for personal injury and product liability claims related to Kewanee boilers manufactured before 1970, and an injunction against OakFabeo disclaiming these obligations. OakFabeo removed the action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The federal court sua sponte questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount-in-controversy and American Standard's standing. The court concluded that American Standard lacked standing to seek declaratory relief for third-party liabilities and, more definitively, that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met. Consequently, the case was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Asbestos LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyStandingRemoval to Federal CourtRemand to State CourtProduct LiabilityThird-Party Liability
References
35
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John and Vincent Arduini Inc. v. Nynex

This case involves a motion for reconsideration and certification for interlocutory appeal filed by Defendants NYNEX against Plaintiff John and Vincent Arduini, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Cleaning Co. Heritage alleged discriminatory retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, defamation, and prima facie tort, stemming from alleged racial bias by a NYNEX property manager. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the defamation and prima facie tort claims due to insufficient admissible evidence and failure to prove special damages, respectively. It also partially granted summary judgment on the § 1981 claim concerning the early termination of one contract, finding Plaintiff failed to show pretext. However, the Court denied reconsideration of its prior ruling on Plaintiff's standing under § 1981 and on other § 1981 claims related to contract bidding, finding material issues of fact. Crucially, the Court granted Defendants' motion to certify the question of Plaintiff's standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, staying all further proceedings.

DiscriminationRetaliationSection 1981StandingInterlocutory AppealReconsiderationDefamationPrima Facie TortSummary JudgmentCorporate Standing
References
44
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,707 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