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.

3:04-cv-00057

Order

At a hearing conducted on February 13, 2004, this Court DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Order more fully sets forth the Court’s rationale.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:03-cr-00182

Memorandum Opinion

On February 10, 2004, the court entered an order granting Defendant Gray's Motion to Suppress and ordering the exclusion of all evidence obtained through an unlawful search of Mr. Gray's home that occurred on July 3, 2003 [Docket 55]. The court found that the government failed to meet its burden of proving that Mr. Gray knowingly and voluntarily consented to the officers' entry into his home and that the officers' entry therefore constituted an unlawful search. In addition, the court found that the subsequently issued warrant to search Mr. Gray's home was invalid because the warrant was based solely on evidence obtained during the illegal predicate search and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply in this circumstance. The rationale for these rulings is explained below.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:03-cv-02147

Order

Pending before the court is the defendant Dianna Johnson's motion to dismiss [Docket 20]. Ms. Johnson moves the court (1) to dismiss Count 3 of the plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc.'s complaint [Docket 1] for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and (2) to dismiss Ms. Johnson from the action because of the improper joinder of parties.  Count 3 of the complaint alleges that the defendant is civilly liable for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2512.  Because neither 18 U.S.C. § 2512 nor 18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides for civil liability for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2512, I FIND that Count 3 of the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  Accordingly, I GRANT the defendant's motion to dismiss Count 3 of the complaint.  I also FIND that the claims against Ms. Johnson are not reasonably related to the claims against the other defendants, and I therefore GRANT Ms. Johnson's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21.  I also FIND that all other defendants except the first named defendant are improperly joined, and, accordingly, ORDER sua sponte the dismissal without prejudice of all other defendants except the first named defendant.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:02-cv-00174

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine for a Pre-Trial Ruling Regarding the Application of West Virginia Code Section 55-7B-8 and For a Ruling That Each Separately Read, Interpreted, Dictated and Billed-For Radiology Consultation Is a Separate Occurrence (Plaintiffs’ Motion) [Docket 113].  I previously granted the defendants’ request for permission to file a supplemental memorandum at the close of discovery on the issue of whether each radiology consultation constituted a separate occurrence.  For the reasons  discussed below, I now FIND that West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8, as enacted at the time of the alleged occurrences of medical malpractice here, limited an individual health care provider’s liability for an occurrence of medical malpractice to $1,000,000.  Section 55-7B-8 did not limit the total amount a plaintiff could recover in a single action from different health care providers for their separate acts of medical malpractice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:03-cv-00748

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are Plaintiffs’ motions to remand.  The Court DENIES the motions.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:03-cv-02433

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff Brenda Campbell’s motion to remand. The Court DENIES the motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:02-cv-01260

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment and sanctions [Docket 106].  The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley.  Magistrate Judge Stanley treated the plaintiffs’ motion as dispositive under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and issued proposed findings and a recommendation that the court deny the plaintiffs’ motion [Docket 123].  The plaintiffs timely filed objections to the findings and recommendation by the Magistrate Judge [Docket 126].  For the reasons that follow, the court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Stanley’s findings.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:03-cv-02286

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are the motions of Volvo Logistics North America, Inc. (Volvo Logistics)  1) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process, 2) to transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, and 3) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the last motion made jointly with Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo Trucks).  The motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process are DENIED without prejudice.  Because the Court also GRANTS the motion to transfer the action to the Bluefield division, the remaining motion will be transferred to Chief Judge Faber for resolution.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:03-cv-00418

Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 13]. The plaintiff originally petitioned the Circuit CourtofKanawha County, West Virginia to set aside a deed to her property that the defendants obtained through West Virginia's tax sale procedure. The defendants timely removed the action to this court which has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:03-cr-00262

Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment filed in this case (doc. no. 9).   The Court has considered the motion, the Government’s response, and the evidence and oral argument received on January 5, 2004.  For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages