You are here

Opinions

The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.

Sandra Hershberger and David Mitchell v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. 09/23/2011
2:10-cv-00837

Amended Memorandum Opinion, Order and Recommendations

This products liability case presents the issue of whether, pursuant to Rule 26(g), Fed. R. Civ. P., sanctions should be imposed on defendants which failed, in a timely manner, to produce discovery material relating to other similar incidents involving its product.  The plaintiffs also raise other issues respecting the defendants’ conduct.  The product in this case is a Proximate ILS Curved Intraluminal Stapler (model CDH29) (“the stapler”), used in a colosotomy reversal to fasten the descending colon to the rectum, a procedure called “anastomosis.”  The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the stapler “malfunctioned and failed to discharge any staples, resulting in perforation of the colon and necessitating further surgical and other medical treatment.”  (Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, at 4.)  More specifically, the complaint asserts that the stapler was not loaded with staples prior to distribution.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Andres Javier Sanchez v. Dominic McLain, et al. 09/23/2011
5:07-cv-00355

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment [Docket 97, 100, & 101], Defendants’ motions to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment [Docket 99 & 129], Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal [Docket 118], and Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Drs. Kimmel and Simons [Docket 132].

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Cecilia V. Gregorio v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al. 09/16/2011
CV-10-00407-PHX-JRG

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 52].  For the reasons explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Lee Edward Jones v. Evelyn Seifert, Warden, et al. 09/08/2011
5:04-cv-00660

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 21], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  The respondents have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34], which has been fully briefed and is now ripe for review.  For the reasons provided below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Maple Coal Company 09/02/2011
3:11-cv-00009

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 7), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 13), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Abstain (ECF 23), and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 62).  A hearing was held on the motions on August 26, 2011.  All briefing has been submitted, and the issues are ripe for disposition.  For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs’ supplemental motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Logan & Kanawha Coal Co., LLC v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC 06/10/2011
2:11-cv-00342

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the motion by the plaintiff, Logan & Kanawha Coal Co., LLC (“L&K”) to Order Service by the U.S. Marshals Service [Docket 5].  For the reasons outlined below, this motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent it requests that this court direct the United States Marshals Service to serve upon the defendant the plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and other supporting documentation.  The plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to complete Form USM285, and take all necessary steps, including prepayment of the estimated fees and expenses for service, to facilitate service of the defendant by the U.S. Marshals Service, and deliver the same to the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Steven M. Giles and Mayer Friedman v. ICG, Inc., et al. 05/31/2011
3:11-cv-00330

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This is a shareholder challenge to a two-step acquisition in which a third-party corporation has agreed to commence a tender offer for a majority of the target corporation’s stock, followed by a back-end merger into a subsidiary of the acquirer.  Pending are various motions filed by the parties.  For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants’ Motion to Proceed in One Jurisdiction, Dismiss or Stay Litigation in the Other Jurisdiction, and Organize Counsel for the Putative Class.  [Doc. 5]

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
William David Richards v. Appalachian Power Company, et al. 05/26/2011
2:11-cv-00144

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this action to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia [Docket 5].  For the following reasons, the court FINDS that the plaintiff’s claims are not completely preempted and GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Coal-Mac, Inc., and Mingo Logan Coal Company 03/31/2011
3:10-cv-00833, 3:10-cv-00836

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are multiple motions and cross-motions for summary judgment in OVEC v. Coal-Mac, 3:10-0833, and OVEC v. Independence, 3:10-836.  In Coal-Mac, pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and to Schedule a Hearing on the Scope of Injunctive Relief (Doc. 5); Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of Negotiations Between Arch Coal, Inc. and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Doc. 13); Coal-Mac’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 18); Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (Doc. 26); and Coal-Mac, Inc. and Mingo Logan Coal Company’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 37).  In Independence, pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (Doc. 14) and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 24).  Also pending are Plaintiffs’ Motions to File Surreply to Defendants’ Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendants’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment in Coal-Mac (Doc. 76) and Independence (Doc. 57).  Both these latter motions are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ memorandums were considered in the disposition of these motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Marion V. Smith v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al. 03/11/2011
2:10-cv-00354

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) [Docket 22].  BAC’s position rests primarily on preemption, an important constitutional doctrine that draws its force from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Preemption reflects the principle that, in the collective wisdom of Congress, the laws of the several States must sometimes give way to a set of nationally uniform rules and regulations. Nevertheless, because part of the genius of our constitutional Republic stems from its preservation of dual sovereigns, federal preemption of state law is not something to be undertaken lightly.  BAC’s briefing accords these principles little weight.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages