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
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. 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 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 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. 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 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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Order re: Ethicon's Motion to Dismiss Spoliation Claims)
Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Cause of Action for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence [ECF No. 892]. The plaintiffs’ filed a Response [ECF No. 933], and the defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 991]. The Motion is now ripe for adjudication, and for the reasons provided below, the Motion is GRANTED.
Order
Pending before the court is the defendant Milton Moody’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process [ECF No. 8], filed on September 1, 2016. This action was removed to federal court on July 28, 2016. Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand [ECF No. 5], which was denied by the court’s September 21, 2016, Memorandum Opinion & Order [ECF No. 23].
Order
(Order re: Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation)
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for the Spoliation of William Martin’s Custodial File [ECF No. 124], which was filed on April 4, 2016. For the reasons given below, the plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.