Skip to main content

Davis v. United States Department of Labor

D.C. CircuitFebruary 24, 2012No. No. 79-cv-02561 (RCL)Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lamberth
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order denying plaintiff's appeal and motion for clarity, finding that the Magistrate Judge did not err in her interpretation and enforcement of prior court orders regarding reimbursement obligations. The case was terminated from the court's active docket as the underlying dispute had been settled.

What This Ruling Means

# Davis v. United States Department of Labor **What Happened** Davis had a dispute with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involving money the company owed him. Davis claimed the company breached (broke) an agreement to reimburse him for certain expenses or payments. He appealed the case, asking a higher court to review a judge's earlier decision that went against him. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court sided with the lower court judge, rejecting Davis's appeal. The court found that the lower court judge correctly interpreted and enforced previous court orders about what Liberty Mutual was required to pay back. The case was closed after the two parties settled their dispute. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that workers pursuing reimbursement claims against employers need to be aware that courts will carefully examine earlier agreements and orders. Once a judge interprets what money is owed, appeals courts are unlikely to reverse that decision unless there's a clear error. Settlement remains an important way to resolve these disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Krausman
Conn. App. Ct.Oct 2025

The plaintiff insured appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defen- dant insurance company on her amended complaint alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance dispute concerning underinsured motorist benefits. She claimed, inter alia, that the court improp- erly granted the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery, as the court reasonably could have concluded that bifurcation of the claims served interests of convenience and judicial efficiency and may have negated the need to litigate certain other issues. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for an order of compliance with her discovery requests, as the defendant eventually filed a notice of compliance and the plaintiff did not allege any prejudice resulting from the defendant's delay in complying with her discov- ery requests. This court declined to reach the merits of the plaintiff's claim that the trial court erred with respect to certain legal and factual determinations, as the plaintiff failed to furnish an adequate record for review. The trial court applied a proper legal standard in ruling on the counts of the plaintiff's complaint alleging that the defendant failed to act in good faith pursuant to a provision of CUTPA and that it acted in bad faith in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the court reasonably could have concluded, in light of the evidence and the related findings of fact, that the plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the defendant had acted in bad faith. Argued October 29, 2024—officially released October 28, 2025

Defendant Win
Regional Local Union Nos. 846 And 847, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Afl-Cio, and Regional District Council Welfare Plan and Trust v. Triton Steel, LLC
D. Or.Apr 2025
Dismissed
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Farah Naz v. Chris Wright
D.C. CircuitJun 2026
Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.