Order
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons provided herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
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.
3:02-cv-00198
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
5:02-cv-01432
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Defendant removed this case to this Court on December 12, 2002. Plaintiffs moved for remand, asserting Defendant’s removal petition was untimely and that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Defendant contended its removal petition was filed timely and that federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provided a basis for removal of the action. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for remand, and ORDERS the case be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:02-cv-00078
Memorandum Opinion and Order
By memorandum opinion and order entered November 27, 2002, the court denied without prejudice, motions to compel filed by Plaintiff (Document ## 75 and 78) in which Plaintiff sought to compel Defendant to produce certain information and documents and, where a privilege was asserted by Defendant, to produce all allegedly privileged information and documents to the court for in camera review. (Document # 82.) In his motions to compel, Plaintiff argued that the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines did not apply in this first party insurance bad faith action and, as such, Defendant should be required to turn over protected information. The court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and determined that it was appropriate to apply established principles of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to the discovery at hand. At the time of the court’s November 27, 2002, memorandum opinion and order, the court had not seen a privilege log that had been prepared by Defendant.
Author:
Mary E. Stanley
2:02-cv-01343
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of Defendant Georgie Boy Manufacturing, Inc. (Georgie Boy) to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After Georgie Boy’s motion was filed, Plaintiff Joe C. Boland (Boland) was given leave to amend and add a second count to the Complaint. Count One of the Amended Complaint, filed January 10, 2003, remains identical to the single count of the original Complaint, which Georgie Boy moves to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court construes the motion as one to dismiss Count One of the Amended Complaint. That motion is DENIED.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-01062
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of Plaintiff West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) for summary judgment and a permanent injunction on Count 9 of its Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. For reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on approval by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of certain other state program amendments also pends. That motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
3:02-cv-00059
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is a motion by the plaintiffs, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition et al., to supplement the administrative record submitted by the defendant, Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [Docket 49]. For the following reasons, this motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Also pending is a motion by the EPA to file the administrative record out of time [Docket 40]. This motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:01-cv-00835
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the plaintiff’s use of the “HealthNet” service mark and the plaintiff’s motion for oral argument on these motions. The plaintiff, HealthNet, Inc., filed this action on September 12, 2001, seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the mark “HealthNet” is not likely to cause confusion and thus does not constitute trademark infringement and/or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127, as against the defendant’s mark “Health Net.” The defendant, Health Net, Inc., asserts counterclaims for trademark infringement and for false designation of origin and false impression of association.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin