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.

2:15-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
2:15-cv-00361

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the parties’ covenant to not compete. (Pls.’ Mot. for a TRO & Prelim. Inj., Writ of Replevin, Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery, & Produc. of Docs. & Things [Docket 5]). For the reasons explained below, the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on this issue is DENIED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to refer any remaining discovery matters contained in plaintiffs’ motion [Docket 5] to the Magistrate Judge.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:12-cv-08633

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motion in Limine No.9)

Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Evidence or Argument That Boston Scientific Owed or Breached a Duty to Warn Plaintiffs Directly (“Motion in Limine No. 9”). (See BSC’s Initial Mots. in Limine [Docket 374], at ¶ 9). For the reasons set forth below, BSC’s Motion in Limine No. 9 is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:12-cv-08633

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Punitive Damages Claims and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint)

Pending before the court are (1) Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims [Docket 263];1 and (2) plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Docket 167]. For the reasons below, I FIND that West Virginia law, not Massachusetts law, applies to plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims and that there are genuine disputes of material fact over whether punitive damages are appropriate. Accordingly, I DENY BSC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims. Because I conclude West Virginia punitive damages law applies here and Ms. Wilson concedes her motion is moot if this is so, I DENY plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
MDL 2327

Pretrial Order #100
(Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions)

Currently pending in this nmltidistrict litigation is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 952). Plaintiffs claim that after a duty to preserve evidence had been triggered, defendant Ethicon, Inc. ("Ethicon") lost or destroyed tens of thousands of documents that likely contained information relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against Ethicon in three bellwether cases, the striking of defenses in other cases, an adverse instruction in all cases, and attorneys' fees and costs. Ethicon has responded in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiffs have replied. (ECF Nos. 1022, 1041). The undersigned heard oral argument from the parties on January 23, 2014. Therefore, the matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
2:12-cv-05762

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motions for Summary Judgment on Substantive Claims and Punitive Damages)

Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 60], the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 62], and Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [Docket 64]. For the reasons stated below, Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 60] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 62] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [Docket 64] is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:13-cv-26419

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless’s (“Verizon”) Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration [Docket 8], Motion to Suspend Deadlines Pending Resolution of its Motion to Compel [Docket 19], and Motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery [Docket 28]. The decisive issue before me is whether the parties’ arbitration agreement, if entered into by the parties, applies to the plaintiff’s claim that Verizon’s debt collection methods were unlawful. I conclude that the arbitration agreement is narrow in scope and does not encompass the plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate. For these reasons, Verizon’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration [Docket 8] is DENIED. Verizon’s motions to suspend deadlines [Docket 19] and for a protective order to stay discovery [Docket 28] are DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages