Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Docket 6]. For the reasons discussed below, this Motion is DENIED.
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.
3:10-cv-01039
Memorandum Opinion
This action seeks a review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereinafter “Commissioner”) denying Claimant’s applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f. This case is presently before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (Docket Nos. 14 and 17). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Nos. 15 and 16).
Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
MDL 1968
Pretrial Order #87
(Memorandum Opinion and Order re Dispositive and Daubert Motions)
Pending are the (1) Actavis defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 523], their Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ General Liability Experts [Docket 525], their Motion to Exclude Unreliable Hearsay [Docket 527], their Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Lynne Farrell [Docket 572], their Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 620, which is the declaration of David M. Bliesner, Ph.D. [Docket 579], and the Mylan defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony [Docket 528], all of which are filed in 2:08-md-1968; (2) the defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 621, which is the declaration of Reynolds Delgado III, M.D., both of which are filed in the Vega case [Docket 55 and 68 in 2:09-cv-00768], and (3) the defendants’ Motions to Exclude the Decedent’s Postmortem Blood Digoxin Concentration and the Expert Testimony of Richard Mason, M.D., and Keith Gibson, and for Summary Judgment [Docket 120], their Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Lynne Farrell [Docket 144], and their additional request to Strike Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 620, the declaration of Dr. Bliesner [Docket145], all of which are filed in the McCornack action, 2:09-cv-00671.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:10-cv-01295
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), for judgment on the pleadings filed April 4, 2011.
Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
3:11-cr-00058
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On October 10, 2011, this Court held a hearing to sentence Defendant in the above-captioned case. At the sentencing, Defendant’s counsel raised two objections to the presentence report. As ordered at the October 10 hearing and for the reasons given in this memorandum opinion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s first objection and DENIES Defendant’s second objection to the presentence report.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:10-cv-00837
Amended Memorandum Opinion, Order and Recommendations
This products liability case presents the issue of whether, pursuant to Rule 26(g), Fed. R. Civ. P., sanctions should be imposed on defendants which failed, in a timely manner, to produce discovery material relating to other similar incidents involving its product. The plaintiffs also raise other issues respecting the defendants’ conduct. The product in this case is a Proximate ILS Curved Intraluminal Stapler (model CDH29) (“the stapler”), used in a colosotomy reversal to fasten the descending colon to the rectum, a procedure called “anastomosis.” The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the stapler “malfunctioned and failed to discharge any staples, resulting in perforation of the colon and necessitating further surgical and other medical treatment.” (Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, at 4.) More specifically, the complaint asserts that the stapler was not loaded with staples prior to distribution.
Author:
Mary E. Stanley
5:07-cv-00355
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment [Docket 97, 100, & 101], Defendants’ motions to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment [Docket 99 & 129], Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal [Docket 118], and Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Drs. Kimmel and Simons [Docket 132].
Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
CV-10-00407-PHX-JRG
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 52]. For the reasons explained below, the Motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:04-cv-00660
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket 21], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondents have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34], which has been fully briefed and is now ripe for review. For the reasons provided below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:11-cv-00009
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 7), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 13), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Abstain (ECF 23), and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 62). A hearing was held on the motions on August 26, 2011. All briefing has been submitted, and the issues are ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs’ supplemental motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers