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
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 16]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 18] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 19] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Order re: Ethicon's Motion for Reconsideration)
Pending before the court is a Motion to Reconsider Alternative Design Ruling or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Question to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals [ECF No. 819] filed by the defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively “Ethicon”). The plaintiffs filed a Response [ECF No. 903], and Ethicon filed a Reply [ECF No. 922]. For the reasons provided below, Ethicon’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Ethicon’s alternative Motion to Certify Question is DENIED as moot.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On November 18, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs Financial Information, (ECF No.181), and Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, (ECF No. 182). Having considered the written materials and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for sanctions as set forth below.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
It is ORDERED that the court’s November 18, 2016, Memorandum Opinion & Order [ECF No. 17] is amended for minor typographical changes.
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 15] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 16] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 10]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 15] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 16] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 14]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 18] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 19] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 16]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 21] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 22] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 16] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 17] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 16] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 17] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court are the plaintiff Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 94] (“Arch’s Motion”), the plaintiff Steadfast Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 92] (“Steadfast’s Motion”; together, with Arch’s Motion, “the plaintiffs’ Motions”), and the defendants Berkley National Insurance Company and Stric-Lan Companies, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 89] (“the Defendants’ Motion”). The parties have fully briefed each motion, and the matter is ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ Motions in part and DENIES the plaintiffs’ Motions in part. The Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.