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.

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Apogee Coal Company, LLC 10/08/2010
3:07-cv-00413

Order Specifying Relief

On September 1, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and denying Defendant’s Motion to Modify. That Order addressed part of the relief granted but reserved the balance of any relief pending further consideration by the Court.  Since then, the parties have submitted proposals and other information in response to the Order.  Contemporaneously with this Order Specifying Relief, the Court has entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining in more detail the basis for the Court’s decision.  The Court grants additional relief to supplement the relief granted in its September 1, 2010 Order, the provisions of which are incorporated herein. Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Apogee Coal Company, LLC and Hobet Mining, LLC 10/08/2010
3:07-cv-00413, 3:08-cv-00088, 3:09-cv-01167

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Apogee Coal Company, LLC (“Apogee”) and Hobet Mining LLC’s (“Hobet”)1 motions to modify the consent decrees (Docs. 149 & 61) in civil actions 3:07-cv0413 and 3:08-cv-0088, respectively; Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt (Doc. 156) in 3:07-cv-0413; and the scope and terms of injunctive relief in 3:09-cv-01167.  A trial on the motions was held from August 9, 2010, until August 12, 2010. After trial, the parties represented that they were close to resolving the matter and requested a stay of closing arguments and ruling, in order to allow the parties to continue negotiations.  The Court continued the argument, as requested.  Over the next three weeks, the Court consulted with the parties on the status of their negotiations on several occasions.  The parties represented that a settlement in principal had been reached and requested time to negotiate a joint consent decree.  Further continuance was granted.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Thomas Creighton Shrader 08/11/2010
1:09-cr-00270

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Objection to Order Quashing Rule 17(c) Subpoena [Docket 244].  The Court has also reviewed Victim’s Response to Defendant’s Objection [Docket 256]; Defendant’s Reply to Victim’s Response [Docket 259]; and Victim’s Supplemental Response [Docket 263].  After careful consideration, the Court affirms the July 20, 2010, Memorandum Opinion and Order [Docket 234] of United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort, and accordingly denies Defendant’s objections and orders the Court’s Subpoena dated June 4, 2010, quashed.

Author:
Irene C. Berger
Michael Cantley, et al. v. The West Virginia Regional Jail, et al. 08/05/2010
3:09-cv-00758

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (WVRJA) and Terry L. Miller. [Doc. No. 16]. Upon consideration of the arguments by the parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Dean Smith, Sr., et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al. 08/03/2010
2:10-cv-00709

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion to Dismiss [Docket 18] by the defendant, Birchenough Mortgage Services, Inc. (“BMS”).  By its motion, BMS asks the court to dismiss this case for improper venue.  BMS alternatively asks that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.  The Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Daniel Lenoard, et al. v. Mylan, Inc., et al. 07/21/2010
2:09-cv-01160

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 [Docket 11].  The motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Hobet Mining, LLC 07/14/2010
3:09-cv-01167

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This suit, brought on October 23, 2009, and as amended November 9, 2009, seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of: (1) the  effluent limits for selenium in WV/NPDES Permit 1022911, and (2) the performance standards and terms and conditions of surface mining permit S-5008-06.  Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc., and Sierra Club’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 7) and Defendant Hobet Mining LLC’s (“Hobet”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18).

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Ronald Mark Chapman 06/14/2010
3:10-cr-00034

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38).  For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Carl Evan Tooley II 06/14/2010
3:09-cr-00194

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20).  For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 06/07/2010
6:06-cv-01013

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the defendant's motion for summary judgment [Docket 91], cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 100 (by way of response)], and motion to exceed page limit [Docket 90]. Also pending are the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment [Dockets 92, 94, and 97]. For the following reasons, the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 100] and motion to exceed page limit [Docket 90] are GRANTED. The defendant's motion for summary judgment [Docket 91] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The plaintiff's motions [Dockets 94, 97] are DENIED. The plaintiff's motion as to Boggs IV [Docket 92] is also DENIED as premature, and the claims regarding Boggs IV are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages