Memorandum Opinion and Order
This action was previously referred to Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
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.
5:04-cv-01335
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Plaintiff, pro se, an inmate at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex (MOCC) in Mount Olive, West Virginia, brings this action against various prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they disciplined him based on comments he made to a family friend during two telephone conversations at MOCC.
Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
2:08-cv-00073
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the petitioner’s Petition for Injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as Amended [Docket 1]. I held a hearing on the petition on May 8 and 9, 2008, and have received post-hearing briefs from the parties and the amicus curiae. For reasons set forth below, the petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The respondents are ORDERED, within 15 days of this order, to offer in writing interim employment on the terms described below to those individuals named below.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:07-cr-00192
Memorandum Opinion
The defendant in this case was sentenced on June 23, 2008, to a term of imprisonment of 63 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The reasons for this sentence are set forth below.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:08-cv-00165
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. For reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Because I find as a matter of law that the defendant’s subpoena cannot lawfully be enforced against Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the defendant and his agents are (1) permanently ENJOINED from issuing subpoenas or demanding the inspection of the books and records of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., in connection with the defendant’s investigation into credit card lending, and (2) permanently ENJOINED from seeking to enforce the subpoena referenced in State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V . McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, v. Capital One Bank, Misc. Action No. 05-C-71 (Circuit Court of Lincoln County). Because I find that Capital One Services, Inc., is not protected by the National Bank Act, the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the defendant’s subpoena of Capital One Services, Inc., are DISMISSED with prejudice. Likewise, the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
6:06-cv-00530
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket 188]. Under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must determine whether to certify the action as a class action “[a]t an early practicable time.” This determination should only be made “when the court has sufficient information to decide whether the action meets the certification criteria of Rules 23(a) and (b).” Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 21.133 (2004). For the reasons stated below, this court FINDS that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the requirements of Rule 23. The court ORDERS that a preliminary class certification hearing be held on July 2, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Charleston.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
6:06-cv-00530
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Dr. Elizabeth L. Anderson as an expert witness for the defendant [Docket 170]. For reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:04-cv-00813
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion for partial summary judgment of Mid-State Surety Corporation (“Mid-State”), filed February 6, 2006. Also pending is the motion for partial summary judgment of International Fidelity Insurance Company (“Fidelity”), initially filed April 3, 2006, as a memorandum in opposition to Mid-State’s motion for partial summary judgment, and recharacterized as a motion for summary judgment by order entered September 5, 2007.1
Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
3:07-cv-00413
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 56 and 59). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ cross-motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants’ cross-motion is also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit to Their Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 68). This motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:07-cv-00478
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order (docket # 17), filed April 25, 2008, to which Defendant responded in opposition (# 18) on April 27, 2008. Plaintiffs did not file a timely reply.1 The Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the Hon. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., presiding District Judge, on February 25, 2008 (# 12), sets forth the claims of the parties. To summarize, this is a first party breach of contract and bad faith action by attorneys against their legal malpractice insurer.
Author:
Mary E. Stanley