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 the plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 1] (“Complaint”) and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4]. For the reasons detailed below, the court applies the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to this matter and REFERS the issues discussed herein to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for initial consideration of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is a Motion by West Virginia Coal Association (“WVCA”) to intervene as a defendant in this administrative review action. ECF No. 20. In this case, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (“OVEC”) and others (collectively “Plaintiffs”) have challenged an action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge EPA’s approval of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s (“WVDEP”) decision to not develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”) for certain West Virginia streams previously identified as “biologically impaired” due to “ionic stress.” Plaintiffs seek an order that declares EPA’s approval in violation of law, and which requires EPA to develop TMDLs for ionic toxicity for the identified streams. WVCA claims that its intervention in this case is warranted as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and alternatively, permissibly under Rule 24(b). Plaintiffs oppose WVCA’s intervention in this case, and EPA takes no position on intervention. For the reasons offered below, the Court DENIES WVCA’s Motion to Intervene but GRANTS WVCA amicus curiae status in this action.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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