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.

2:12-cv-02952

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Design Defect [ECF No. 128], in which they argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:15-cr-00093

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant Andre Womble’s (“Womble”) Motion to Suppress Statements, ECF No. 30. The sole issue is whether Womble unambiguously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when, after being informed he was under arrest and during interrogation, he said, “[i]f I am under arrest, take me to my bunk; all these questions, we can just skip them because I want to go to court.” 1For the reasons explained below, the Court holds that Womble’s statement was an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent. Because detectives did not cease questioning after Womble invoked his right to remain silent, the Court GRANTS Womble’s Motion to suppress his statements made after he invoked his right.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:15-cr-00021

Memorandum Opinion and Order

At sentencing this Court addressed an objection by Defendant, Jazzmyn Litzy (“Ms. Litzy”) to the Probation Office’s recommendation that this Court apply the career offender enhancement of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”) § 4B1.1 to Ms. Litzy’s sentence. The Court was tasked with deciding whether Ms. Litzy’s robbery conviction under Ohio law qualified as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the career offender enhancement. As explained below, the Court ruled that a prior robbery conviction under Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2911.02(A)(3) cannot qualify under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines career offender enhancement as a predicate conviction for a crime of violence. Therefore, the career offender enhancement may not be applied in Ms. Litzy’s sentencing.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:13-cv-06529

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to Produce Documents Listed in its Supplemental ASO (Automotive Safety Office) Privilege Log and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 536)1.1 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) has filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion, (ECF No. 551), and Plaintiffs have replied, (ECF No. 569). Plaintiffs’ motion relates to 132 documents that Ford has claimed are shielded from discovery due to attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product immunity. (ECF No. 536-7 at 3-68). On August 18, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and ruled that the supplemental privilege log supplied by Ford was insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A). (ECF No. at 591 at 51, 54). This memorandum opinion and order follows the Court’s ruling and confirms that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED insofar as Ford will be required to again supplement its ASO privilege log with more detail describing the documents therein. Ford is ORDERED to provide the updated ASO privilege log to Plaintiffs within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. In addition, Plaintiffs are GRANTED reasonable fees and costs associated with bringing this motion. Plaintiffs are instructed to provide the requisite information regarding fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
2:12-cv-02952

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motions to Clarify)

Pending before the court are defendants’ Objection to PTO # 182 and Motion to Clarify [Docket 27] and plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification Regarding Pretrial Order # 182 [Docket 28]. To the extent these motions seek clarification, they are GRANTED. Below, I address the defendants’ objections and further clarify the scope of the consolidated trial.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:13-cv-25114

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 48]. The Motion, having been fully briefed by the parties, is now ripe for review. Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-03410

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s Motion for Remand [Docket 6] and the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 8]. These motions, having been fully briefed by the parties, are now ripe for review. As described below, the Motion to Remand [Docket 6] is GRANTED, and the Motion to Dismiss [Docket 8] is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
1:15-cv-03833

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. No. 8).  For reasons more fully explained below, the motion for remand is DENIED.1

Author:
David A. Faber
2:13-cv-28892

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Daubert Motions)

Pending before the court are the following motions brought by the defendant: (1) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Niall Galloway, M.D. [Docket 33]; (2) Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Michael Thomas Margolis, M.D. [Docket 34]; (3) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Thomas H. Barker, Ph.D. [Docket 36]; (4) Motion to Limit the Opinions and Testimony of Bobby L. Shull, M.D. [Docket 43]; (5) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Jimmy W. Mays, Ph.D. [Docket 45]; (6) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Peggy Pence, Ph.D. [Docket 46]; (7) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Russell Dunn, Ph.D. [Docket 47]; (8) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Scott Guelcher, Ph.D. [Docket 48]; (9) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of William Porter, M.D. [Docket 49]; (10) Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Richard Trepeta, M.D. [Docket 50]; and (11) Motion to Strike and Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Vladimir Iakovlev, M.D. [Docket 55].

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-01517

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, Sever, and Stay, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand)

Pending before the court are the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket 3], the defendants’ Motion to Sever [Docket 5], the defendants’ Motion to Stay [Docket 8], and the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court [Docket 12]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED except as to the two Texas plaintiffs, Rose Kraft and Sandra Huss; the Motion to Sever is DENIED as moot; the Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot; and the Motion to Remand to State Court is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages