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.

In Re: War Eagle Construction Co., Inc. and H. Lynden Graham, Jr. v. State of West Virginia and Michael O. Callaghan 09/18/2002
5:01-cv-00993

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Defendants/Appellants Michael O. Callaghan, Secretary of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), and the State of West Virginia appeal two orders of the Bankruptcy Court. The first order denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the debtor’s Trustee, H. Lynden Graham, Jr.  The second order denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and granted the Trustee’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.  For reasons set forth below, the first judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is REVERSED.  The second judgment is VACATED as moot.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Richard C. Donovan v. Branch Banking and Trust Company 09/11/2002
2:02-cv-00347

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs request for discovery on the issue of whether the "Change in Control Severance Agreement" between the plaintiff, Richard C. Donovan, and One Valley Bank, the predecessor of the defendant, Branch Banking and Trust Company, constitutes a "plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1947 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. If ERISA preempts the plaintiffs claims, this court may not consider evidence outside of the administrative record. Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1026-27 (4th Cir. 1993 ). The court, therefore, invited the parties to file briefs regarding the existence of a "plan" under ERISA. For the reasons that follow, the court FINDS that the Change in Control Severance Agreement is not a "plan" within the meaning of ERISA and DENIES the plaintiffs request for further discovery on that issue. Because there is diversity between the parties, this court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1996). The court will promptly enter a scheduling order.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Alfred P. Dorsey and Rose Dorsey v. Borg-Warner Automotive, et al. 09/03/2002
2:02-cv-00850

Memorandum Opinion and Remand Order

Pending are the motions of Plaintiffs in these three related civil actions to remand.   Plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Frank H. Coffman, II v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. 09/03/2002
2:00-cv-01156

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, which the Court reinstated for consideration following the Order of July 29, 2002 and the parties’ ensuing supplemental briefing. After considering the parties’ submissions, supplemental materials, and the administrative record, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s cross motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Mid-Atlantic Resources Corp. and William E. Abner, et al. v. Mate Creek Loading, Inc., et al. 08/28/2002
5:01-cv-00699

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This case is an appeal of the bankruptcy court's Order of October 12, 2000, as amended on November 21, 2000, which denied a motion by Plaintiffs below and Appellants herein to remand their wage payment and collection action to the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. In their brief, Appellants assert the bankruptcy court erred because it did not have jurisdiction over their state action and the removal petition was procedurally and substantively infirm. American Metals & Coal International, Inc. (American), AMCI Resources, Inc. (AMCI), and Westmoreland Coal Company (Westmoreland), Pocahontas Land Corporation (Pocahontas), and Thomas H. Fluharty, Appellees herein, have responded to Appellants' appeal and assert the bankruptcy court's decision should be affirmed because the judge properly found Appellants' case was a "core" proceeding within the meaning of28 U.S.C. § 157, there were no defects in the removal procedure, and the principles of abstention and equitable remand are unwarranted under the circumstances.1 The Court disposes with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and in the record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8012.2 For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the bankruptcy court.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
William Adkins v. Michael H. Holland, et al. 08/20/2002
2:02-cv-00249

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are 1) Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motions 2) for partial summary judgement and 3) for an extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Ben Reilly, et al. v. Jack P. Chambers, et al. 08/07/2002
5:02-cv-00415

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  The motion is DENIED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Edna Arnold, et al. v. CSX Hotels, Inc. 07/30/2002
5:02-cv-00498

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This civil action, filed originally in the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, was removed to this court by the defendant. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to remand is DENIED.

Author:
David A. Faber
Boone Supply Company and William J.B. Jacobs v. Cambria County Association for the Blind and Handicapped, et al. 07/26/2002
2:01-cv-00420

Order

Pending before the court are the defendants Cambria County Association's and Superior Filter Company's motions for summary judgment [ dockets # 124 & 126]. For the reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS the defendants' motions.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Richard L. Ahearn v. Rescare West Virginia 07/25/2002
2:02-cv-00368

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are (1) Petitioner's Motion to Quash Respondent's Notice of Deposition Pending Decision Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(C) (1), filed May 17, 2002 (Document# 14); and (2) Motion to Quash or for Protective Order, filed May 28, 2002, by nonparties, Frank Hornick and his employer, District 1199, the Service Employees International Union (Document# 20). The parties and nonparties have responded and replied, the court heard oral argument on July 2, 2002, and the motions are ripe for decision.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley

Pages