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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Currently pending before the Court are motions by Plaintiff Sarah Harless to Amend the Complaint and Remand this action to the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS, in part, DENIES, in part, and HOLDS IN ABEYANCE, in part, the motion to amend; DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand; and DENIES, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of Petitioner Kim Wiggill (Wiggill) for a hearing on whether Respondent Tomasz Janicki (Janicki) should pay the costs of a passport so the parties’ son can travel from the United States to Swindon, England to visit his mother. Wiggill and Janicki had two children during their marriage, which ended by divorce May 9, 1995 in South Africa. The son, Daniel Thomas Janicki (Daniel), who is the subject of this petition, lives with his father in Teays Valley, West Virginia in this judicial district. According to the Petition, on information and belief, Janicki has custody of Daniel, with Wiggill having the right to spend summers with the child. (Pet. ¶ 4.)
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.
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)).
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.
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS the motion.
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.
Order
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion to remand, filed July 12, 2002.
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.