Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3391443

Regular

Jul 15, 2010

SUSANA CASTELLANOS vs. ANTOJITOS MEXICANO VELOZ, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed SCIF's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. SCIF argued the C&R incorrectly stated attorney's fees were $2,050 instead of $2,250 and that SCIF should hold the fees in trust. The Board found SCIF was not aggrieved by the fee amount, as it was a stakeholder with no interest in the $200 difference. Furthermore, the Board determined SCIF was not aggrieved by the lack of a trust order, as the representing attorney could manage the disbursement themselves.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesState Compensation Insurance FundAdministrative Law JudgeAggrieved PartyDue ProcessLabor Code § 5909WCAB Policy and Procedure Manual

References

Case No. SC K 5838/79, SC K 5839/79

Regular Panel Decision

Friedman v. City of New York

In two consolidated small claims actions, a landlord sued the City of New York (Department of Social Services) for rent arrears owed by welfare recipients Catherine Zacona and Luba Simco. The DSS sought dismissal, arguing a lack of privity. The court differentiated the cases: for Zacona (SC K 5838/79), DSS was found liable for fraud, having unilaterally altered payment methods, leading to a $474 judgment for the landlord. For Simco (SC K 5839/79), where the tenant refused to sign a two-party check, the court, prioritizing "substantial justice," ordered a supplemental summons against the tenant and directed DSS to hold the disputed funds as a stakeholder pending further resolution.

Small ClaimsRent ArrearsWelfare BenefitsDepartment of Social ServicesTwo-Party ChecksLandlord-Tenant LawPrivity of ContractTort LawInducing Breach of ContractGovernmental Liability

References

Case No. 12-12900-scc

Regular Panel Decision

In re Patriot Coal Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses motions to transfer the Chapter 11 cases of Patriot Coal Corporation and its ninety-eight affiliated debtors from the Southern District of New York. The Debtors established venue in New York by forming two New York entities solely for that purpose shortly before their filing. While acknowledging no bad faith, the Court found that this "literal compliance" violated the spirit and purpose of the venue statute. The motions to transfer were granted, but not to the Southern District of West Virginia as sought by several movants. Instead, the Court ordered the transfer of the cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, citing the location of Patriot's corporate headquarters, records, management, and its accessibility for a broader range of stakeholders including retirees in the Illinois Basin.

BankruptcyChapter 11Venue TransferCorporate RestructuringCoal Mining IndustryAffiliate Venue RuleSubstance Over Form DoctrineJudicial EconomyCreditor InterestsLabor Union

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kirschner v. KPMG LLP

This opinion addresses two appeals, Kirschner v KPMG LLP and Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, concerning the expansion of remedies for creditors or shareholders against outside professional advisers for corporate financial fraud. Plaintiffs sought to reinterpret New York law regarding in pari delicto, imputation, and the adverse interest exception to broaden third-party liability. The New York Court of Appeals declined to alter its established precedents, affirming the narrow scope of the adverse interest exception. The Court emphasized that allowing corporations to shift responsibility for their agents' misconduct to third parties would undermine public policy goals of deterring illegality and would unfairly burden the innocent stakeholders of professional firms. The decision concludes by answering the certified questions in accordance with this reasoning, reinforcing the existing framework of New York law on these doctrines.

In pari delictoImputationAdverse interest exceptionCorporate fraudAuditor liabilityProfessional malpracticeBankruptcy lawAgency lawShareholder derivative actionCertified questions

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

SUSANA CASTELLANOS vs. ANTOJITOS MEXICANO VELOZ, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Friedman v. City of New York

Small ClaimsRent ArrearsWelfare BenefitsDepartment of Social ServicesTwo-Party ChecksLandlord-Tenant LawPrivity of ContractTort LawInducing Breach of ContractGovernmental Liability

In re Patriot Coal Corp.

BankruptcyChapter 11Venue TransferCorporate RestructuringCoal Mining IndustryAffiliate Venue RuleSubstance Over Form DoctrineJudicial EconomyCreditor InterestsLabor Union

Kirschner v. KPMG LLP

In pari delictoImputationAdverse interest exceptionCorporate fraudAuditor liabilityProfessional malpracticeBankruptcy lawAgency lawShareholder derivative actionCertified questions