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.

Itmann Coal Company v. Magdalene Scalf, et al. 10/15/2009
2:09-mc-00051

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is a petition by Itmann Coal Company (“Itmann”) for Enforcement of an Administrative Order or, in the alternative, Contempt Proceedings [Docket 1]. By its Petition, Itmann seeks judicial enforcement of an order from a federal administrative agency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 927(b). Itmann contends that the United States Department of Labor, on August 25, 2005, ordered the respondent, Magdalene Scalf, to repay $50,913.60 for overpayments by Itmann. Ms. Scalf contends that a certification of facts is not properly before the court and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction. She also asserts that the matter is pending before an administrative law judge and that enforcing the order would be premature. For the reasons explained below, the court DENIES the Petition and DISMISSES this action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Lynn Woodcock, et al. v. Mylan, Inc., et al. 10/14/2009
2:09-cv-00507

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket 15]. The Motion presents two sets of issues. First, the Motion raises a choice-of-law issue. The defendants contend that Alabama law governs all of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff disagrees and argues that West Virginia law applies to her marketing defect claim. Second, regardless of which state’s substantive law applies, the Motion challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint. As explained below, Alabama law governs the substantive issues in this case, except for the manufacturing defect claim. Furthermore, the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded her causes of action. The defendants’ Motion is therefore DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Roger Wolfe v. Paul A. Green, et al. 10/05/2009
2:08-cv-01023

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is plaintiff Roger Wolfe’s motion to remand filed September 24, 2008, contending that two of the defendants failed to consent to the removal of this action from state court within the thirty-day period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). While the rule of unanimity, applicable here, requires the consent of all defendants in due course served, each defendant has thirty days from service upon him in which to consent. McKinney v. Bd. of Trs. of Md. Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992).

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
William R. Rhodes, et al. v. E.I. Du Nemours and Company 09/28/2009
6:06-cv-00530

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket 188]. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of people allegedly harmed by C-8 contamination of their drinking water supply. The plaintiffs have presented compelling evidence that exposure to C-8 may be harmful to human health, and the evidence certainly justifies the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs in this case. What the plaintiffs misunderstand, however, is what they must show in order for me to certify the class. I cannot certify a class based on some potential harm to the general public, rather, there must be specific injuries to each member of the proposed class. The fact that a public health risk may exist is more than enough to raise concern in the community and call government agencies to action, but it does not show the common individual injuries needed to certify a class action. For the reasons set forth below, this court FINDS that the proposed class does not satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United State of America v. Gerard O'Shea and Kathnell O'Shea 09/08/2009
5:09-mc-00043

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court are the United States’ Petitions to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Administration Summons [Docket 1].1 For the reasons set forth below, the Petitions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
United States of America v. Dana Michael Ide 09/01/2009
6:01-cr-00256

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On June 4, 2009, the Government filed a Petition for Revocation of Supervised Release as to Dana Michael Ide, contending that Ide had failed to the submit monthly reports required by the conditions of his supervised release [Docket 196]. On July 17, 2009, Ide filed a Motion to Dismiss the Government’s Petition [Docket 207], and the Government filed a Response on July 28, 2009 [Docket 209]. The question presented by these filings is whether 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) automatically tolled Ide’s term of federal supervised release for the period that he was in state confinement prior to his state-court conviction, and thus, whether Ide was under supervised release when the Government filed the Petition.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Carter M. Stover and Brenda L. Stover v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc. and CIT Bank 08/26/2009
5:09-cv-00152

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court is Defendants Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc. and CIT Bank’s Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Complaint [Docket 7].  For the reasons set forth below, this motion is DENIED.  Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Accept Filing of Reply Brief [Docket 13].  This unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Eugene Long V. Clyde Blair 08/17/2009
2:09-cv-00349

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is defendant Clyde Blair’s motion to dismiss, filed April 27, 2009.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States of America v. Antonio Collins 08/11/2009
2:08-cr-00283

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is defendant Antonio Collins’ motion to suppress evidence, filed March 30, 2009.  The findings of fact that follow are made by a preponderance of the evidence received at the hearing on April 20, 2009.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Tonya G. White v. Michael J. Astrue 07/23/2009
2:08-cv-00976

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Claimant’s applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”), under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f.  Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley

Pages