|
Illinois Lawyer Search - Listings for Komada & Geisler Atty's at Law
Name: Komada & Geisler Atty's at Law
Address: 821 Monroe Ave Charleston, IL 61920
Phone Number: 217-348-6300
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
ARRIAGA v FL PACIFIC FARMS, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of AppealsARRIAGA 1000 v FL PACIFIC FARMS [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-16402 _ D. C. Docket No. 99-01760-CV-T-30 JORGE E. ARRIAGA, ROSALIO HARO-SANCHEZ, MOISES OCHOA-ROSALES, RAYMUNDO VASQUEZ, LUCIO BARTOLO-HUERTA, OSCAR BRAVO-MOYA, INOCENIO GERONIMO-MAGANA, ADOLFO GREGORIO, SANTIAGO JARAMILLA-GOMEZ, ALFONSO LUNA-MARTINEZ, JORGE NIETO-JASSO, DANIEL MOLINA-GREGORIO, GILBERTO PEREZ-FLORES, JOSE LUIS SOLIS-CAMACHO, JUAN FRANCISCO BALDERAS-SEPULVEDA, FRANCISCO SEPULVEDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants versus FLORIDA PACIFIC FARMS, L.L.C., SLEEPY CREEK FARMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 11, 2002) Before DUBINA, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs-appellants are migrant farm workers from Mexico (the "Farmworkers") employed by the defendants-appellees Florida Pacific Farms, L.L.C. and Sleepy Creek Farms, Inc. (the "Growers") during the 1998-1999 strawberry and raspberry seasons. The Farmworkers sued the Growers, alleging a failure by the Growers to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m) & 206(a), and the terms of the work contracts. Specifically, the FLSA claim asserted that the Growers' failure to reimburse the Farmworkers' travel, visa, and recruitment costs at the end of the first workweek pushed their first week's wages below the minimum wage. The contract claim contended that the Growers violated the work contract by not reimbursing the Farmworkers for the cost of transportation to and from their home villages to the Mexican point of hire. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were based upon an agreed statement of undisputed facts. The district court granted the Growers' motion and de...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
RIOGRANDE UNDERWRITE v PITTS FARMS INC IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40823 Summary Calendar RIO GRANDE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PITTS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _ December 18, 2001 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. (Rio Grande) appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its petition for a stay and order compelling arbitration. For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM. Pitts Farms, an onion grower, filed suit in state court alleging state law claims against Rio Grande for its failure to procure the right crop insurance coverage on Pitts' behalf.(1) When Pitts Farms sustained losses to its onion crop, it found that the insurance policy in place failed to designate its red and yellow onions into separate units. According to Pitts Farms, the failure to designate the onion types as separate insurable units as permitted by federal regulations prevented Pitts from fully recovering for its losses. Rio Grande seeks to avoid the litigation in state court by enforcing arbitration provisions in its contracts with Pitts Farms. Unable to obtain relief in state court, Rio Grande filed a petition in federal court requesting a stay and order compelling arbitration. Such relief is available in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only if the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying civil action. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Although Rio Grande has suggested numerous bases for jurisdiction, the district court properly found them to be without merit. First, Rio Grande argues that because its contracts with Pitts Farms relate to interstate commerce, it follows that the FAA applies and that the case may therefore be heard in federal c...
|
|
|