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.

United States of America v. Jimmy Joe Justice 05/15/2003
5:98-cr-00108

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The defendant, Jimmy Joe Justice, pled guilty on August 6, 1998 to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).  Justice was sentenced on October 19, 1998 to twenty-seven months imprisonment, followed by a three year term of supervised release.  Justice began serving that term of release on July 14, 2000.  On January 10, 2003, the United States Probation Office filed a petition charging Justice with violating certain standard conditions of supervised release.  The current issue in this case concerns an allegation in the petition that a September 2002 urine specimen obtained from Justice tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.  Justice contends that a possession violation should be categorized as a Class C violation under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.1  The probation office,  relying on a case from the Seventh Circuit, United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001), and a probation department memorandum from the Middle District of North Carolina, asserts that the proper classification in this case is Class B due to Justice’s status as a prior drug felon.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Dream L. Adkins v. Jo Anne Barnhart 05/14/2003
2:02-cv-00087

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated March 5, 2003 and Alternative Motion for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), filed March 19, 2003.  (Docket Sheet Document # (hereinafter “#”) 20.)  The parties have responded and replied and the matter is ripe for decision.  (Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and Alternative Motion for 60(b) Relief (# 24); Defendant’s Reply Brief (# 26)).

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC v. XL Specialty Insurance Company, et al. 05/13/2003
2:02-cv-01437

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is a motion to remand to state court filed by the plaintiff, Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, P.L.L.C. (Hill) [Docket 21].  For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion and REMANDS the case to state court.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
James Sanders v. Pechiney Rolled Products, LLC, et al. 05/05/2003
3:03-cv-00024

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s, Pechiney Rolled Products, LLC (Pechiney), Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Frank Mordesovitch v. Westfield Insurance Company 04/23/2003
2:02-cv-00078

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The Court GRANTS the motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Daniel Tingler v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and John Doe Plan Administrator 04/02/2003
6:02-cv-01285

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended and supplemental complaint.  [Docket 16].  The court FINDS that all of the plaintiff’s various claims are either completely or substantively preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.  Accordingly, the court (1) GRANTS the defendants’ motion to recharacterize Count I as a claim for benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II, III, and V with prejudice because such claims are not authorized under ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions; (3) GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count IV because it relates to the processing of the plaintiff’s benefits under an ERISA plan; and (4) GRANTS the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s request for extracontractual compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Stafford EMS, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Trasnport, Inc., et al. 03/31/2003
2:02-cv-00886

Order

This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion to remand, filed July 12, 2002.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Berek Glucksberg and Elsa Glucksberg v. William Polan, et al. 03/19/2003
3:99-cv-00129

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is defendants William and Charles Polan's motion to strike evidence proffered by R.R. Fredeking and Kim Wolfe. The defendants argue that this court's Decemher 16, 2002 order, which granted the motion by Mr. Fredeking and Mr. Wolfe to intervene and for relief from judgment, was jurisdictionally infirm because of the pendancy of an appeal. Accordingly, they argue, Mr. Fredeking and Mr. Wolfe are not parties to this lawsuit and lack standing to submit evidence. In addition, the defendants argue that the proffered evidence should be excluded under Fed. R. Fvid. 608(b) and for lack of adequate time to object to the evidence. The court will consider these objections in turn.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. v. Teddy L. Bragg 03/19/2003
2:02-cv-01023

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Prohibit Judicial Proceedings. Defendant has neither responded to the Petition, nor replied to the Plaintiff’s response to the dispositive motion.1 The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Petition.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
John Collins and Debbie Southworth v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. 03/13/2003
2:00-cv-00938

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In reply thereto, Defendant filed Red Roof Inns, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in_Support of its Motion to Dismiss. Also currently pending before the Court is the Memorandum of Red Roof Inns, Inc. in Support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment. In response, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment. Finally, in reply thereto, Defendant filed the Reply Memorandum of Red Roof Inns, Inc. in Support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the aforementioned Motions, all memoranda both in support thereof and in opposition thereto, as well as all relevant case and statutory law, the Court is now prepared to issue its decision.

Author:
Elizabeth V. Hallanan

Pages