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. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer, et al. 04/01/2005
3:00-cv-00058

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Attorney Fees

Plaintiff Hominy Creek Preservation Association, Inc. (HCPA) petitions the Court for an award of attorney fees and litigation costs against Green Valley Coal Company (Green Valley), an intervenor subsequently made a defendant in this action. This lawsuit was brought under the citizen suit provisions in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).  HCPA contends that the applicable standard found in 30 U.S.C. § 1270(d)1 entitles it to an award despite the fact that its lawsuit, insofar as against Green Valley, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily by HCPA prior to an adjudication on the merits.  HCPA argues that certain remedial environmental action was undertaken by Green Valley in response to the lawsuit or in response to the regulatory actions which HCPA prompted.  For the reasons cited below, the Court GRANTS IN PART HCPA’s Petition.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Joshua Brent Gray and Terrence A. Askew 03/17/2005
3:03-cr-00182

Order

Since 1987, district court judges have determined criminal sentences pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA), Pub. L. 98-473, Title II, §§ 211-238, 98 Stat. 1987 (1984) and the Guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.  The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (Jan. 12, 2005), significantly alters the sentencing scheme that has existed since 1987.  In accordance with the Booker decision, I conducted the sentencing hearing in the instant case as follows.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Thomas J. Eastes v. Verizon Communications 03/01/2005
2:01-cv-00763

Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 33], the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 39], and the defendant’s motion to exceed page limitations [Docket 40].  For cause shown, the defendant’s motion to exceed page limitations [Docket 40] is GRANTED.  For the following reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 33] is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a ruling estopping Verizon from changing Mr. Eastes’ official retirement date.  The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 39] is DENIED.  This case is REMANDED to the plan administrator for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Marsha L. Ferrell v. Grange Insurance and Motorist Mutual Insurance Company 02/03/2005
3:04-cv-00587

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss.1  For the reasons that follow herein the Court DENIES the motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Pinnoak Resources, LLC and Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. 01/13/2005
5:04-cv-00192

Opinion on Motion to Remand

This civil action was filed originally in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, on February 6, 2004. The plaintiffs are PinnOak Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in West Virginia. The two plaintiffs are closely related business entities and are referred to collectively hereinafter as "PinnOak." PinnOak owns and operates an underground bituminous coal mine in Wyoming County known as the Pinnacle Mine.

Author:
David A. Faber
Eastern Associated Coal Corp., et al. v. District 17, United Mine Workers of America, et al. 11/10/2004
2:03-cv-02430

Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiffs and defendant's cross motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the motions, memoranda of law, and exhibits, the court DENIES the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Rakesh Wahi, M.D. v. Charelston Area Medical Center, et al. 10/28/2004
2:04-cv-00019

Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment [Docket 17].   After a thorough review of the pending motion, responses, and supplemental memoranda, the court FINDS that it would be premature to treat the motion as one for summary judgment.  Accordingly, the court will treat the defendants’ motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  In addition, the court ORDERS the parties to engage in limited discovery and then brief the court for summary judgment purposes.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Jerome D. Massenburg, M.D. 10/21/2004
2:03-cv-00437

Order

Pending before the court are the government’s and defendant’s cross motions for summary judgment.  After reviewing the motions, memoranda of law, and exhibits, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court DENIES the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Minee L. Sloane and Clyde G. Sloane v. Kanawha County Sheriff Department, et al. 10/15/2004
2:04-cv-00476

Amended Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
DirectTV, Inc. v. John Borich 09/20/2004
1:03-cv-02146

Order

Pending before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment By Default Against Defendant John Borich [Docket 9].  A review of the motion and of the court’s file indicates that the defendant, John Borich, has failed to answer or otherwise defend this action in a timely manner. Accordingly, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a default, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), against Mr. Borich.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages