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.

Sadie White, et al. v. Ally Financial Inc., et al. 01/15/2013
2:12-cv-00384

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are defendant West Asset Management’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Docket 24] and Motion to Stay [Docket 26]. These motions have been fully briefed by both parties and the matters are ripe for review. As discussed below, this court HOLDS today that an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 that affords a named plaintiff in a putative class action complete relief and is made prior to a motion for class certification does not moot the putative class action, as long as the motion for class certification is ultimately timely filed. The United States Supreme Court has held that a named plaintiff has an interest in obtaining a final decision on class certification, separate and distinct from his or her interest in obtaining a final decision on the merits, and sufficient for a federal court to maintain jurisdiction over the case. If such an interest exists, then it must exist at the time the named plaintiff files his or her class action complaint.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Roger Hoschar and Judy Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Company and Industrial Contractors, Inc. 11/30/2012
3:11-cv-00152

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Defendant Appalachian Power Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 88), and Defendant Industrial Contractors, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 90).  Because Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants share the same relevant facts, the Court will address both motions in a single opinion.  For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Mark Davis 11/29/2012
2:12-cr-00120

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion to suppress and to dismiss portions of his indictment [Docket 19].  The United States filed its response on September 18, 2012 (Docket 32).  On September 24, 2012, the Court heard evidence and argument on Defendant’s motion.  Thereafter, the parties filed supplemental briefing (Docket 49, 50).  On November 28, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to continue the December 4, 2012, trial of this case [Docket 56].  For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES both motions.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Olivia Niitsoo v. Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., et al. 11/05/2012
2:12-cv-04377

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case to the Circuit Court of Boone County [Docket 13]. The disposition of this motion depends on whether the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), as amended by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), permits the removal of securities class actions alleging violations of federal law. This is a matter of first impression for this court. For the reasons stated below, I hold that, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the Securities Act only permits the removal of securities class actions alleging state law fraud violations, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b), which must be dismissed whether they are before state or federal courts. Arguments to the contrary exist, but recent Supreme Court dicta in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006), persuade me that the defendants cannot properly remove a federal securities class action originally brought in state court. Accordingly, the Motion to Remand is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Steve Anthony Tucker v. Michael J. Astrue 09/27/2012
3:11-cv-00930

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying plaintiff’s application for a period of disability and 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. This case is presently before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF Nos. 12 and 13). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 8 and 11). The Court has fully considered the evidence and the arguments of counsel. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 09/13/2012
3:11-cv-00149

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal, and an Emergency Injunction Pending a Ruling on this Motion (ECF No. 187). In their underlying case, Plaintiffs1 challenged the decision by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter “Army Corps” or “the Corps”) to issue an individual Clean Water Act (“CWA”) § 404 permit to Highland Mining Company (“Highland”) to discharge fill material into streams for the purpose of conducting surface coal mining activities at the Reylas Surface Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.  In April 2011, this Court granted the Corps’ motion to remand the permit to the agency for reconsideration.  In September 2011, the Corps reinstated the permit, and this litigation resumed. All parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the Corps in a short order on May 1, 2012. Order, ECF No. 156.  The Court granted summary judgment on the remaining cross-motions on August 10, 2012. Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 183. Plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed the pending Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal and an Emergency Injunction Pending a Ruling on this Motion (ECF No. 187).

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Forrest Loudin, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Trust Company, et al. 09/05/2012
2:12-cv-02495

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case to the Circuit Court of Clay County [Docket 6].  For the reasons discussed below, this Motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Jane Doe, et al. v. Wood County Board of Education, et al. 08/29/2012
6:12-cv-04355

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction [Docket 4]. A hearing was held on August 27, 2012. The court holds today that the option to opt out of a single-sex education program does not satisfy the requirement under the 2006 United States Department of Education regulations that single-sex programs be “completely voluntary.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.34(b)(1)(iii). However, the court also finds that the preliminary relief requested by the plaintiffs is overly broad. Accordingly and for the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 08/10/2012
3:11-cv-00149

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Plaintiffs1 challenge the decision by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter “Army Corps” or simply “the Corps”) to issue an individual Clean Water Act (“CWA”) § 404 permit to Highland Mining Company (“Highland”) to discharge fill material into streams for the purpose of conducting surface coal mining activities at the Reylas Surface Mine located in Logan County, West Virginia.  In April 2011, this Court granted the Corps’ motion to remand the permit to the agency for reconsideration.  In September 2011, the Corps reinstated the permit, and this litigation resumed.  As a result of actions by the Corps during the remand, Plaintiffs have withdrawn Counts Two and Three of their Second Amended Complaint.  At this time, only Counts One and Four remain for resolution by the Court.  All parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining counts, and the Court granted partial summary judgment for the Corps in a short order on May 1, 2012.  Order, ECF No. 156.  The rationale for that decision is set forth herein.  The remainder of the cross-motions were held in abeyance in order to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and this case is now ripe for decision.  For the reasons set forth below, the United States Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 116) is GRANTED.  Intervenor-Defendant Highland Mining Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 96) is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) is DENIED.  A separate judgment order will be entered along with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Shelia R. Combs, et al. v. Elkay Mining Company 08/08/2012
2:11-cv-00794

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are Elkay Mining Company’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 7] and Elkay Mining Company’s Motions for Leave to File Newly-Acquired Authority [Dockets 16 and 21].  For the reasons discussed below, the Motions for Leave to File Newly-Acquired Authority are GRANTED and the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages