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.

Marion V. Smith v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al. 03/11/2011
2:10-cv-00354

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) [Docket 22].  BAC’s position rests primarily on preemption, an important constitutional doctrine that draws its force from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Preemption reflects the principle that, in the collective wisdom of Congress, the laws of the several States must sometimes give way to a set of nationally uniform rules and regulations. Nevertheless, because part of the genius of our constitutional Republic stems from its preservation of dual sovereigns, federal preemption of state law is not something to be undertaken lightly.  BAC’s briefing accords these principles little weight.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
U.S. Foodservice, Inc. v. Timothy Donahue, et al. 02/18/2011
3:10-cv-00183

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are a Motion to Vacate Any and All Default and Other Judgments [Docket 42], filed by the defendant Timothy Donahue, and a Motion to Vacate Any and All Default and Other Judgments [Docket 45], filed by the defendant Barbara Donahue.  For the reasons provided below, both motions are DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Roger Wolfe v. Paul A. Green, et al. 02/03/2011
2:08-cv-01023

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is plaintiff Roger Wolfe’s motion for award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, filed December 18, 2009. Plaintiff seeks a total of $299,560.17 in attorneys’ fees, $37,355.19 in costs, and $52,059.42 in expert witness expenses.1

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Tia Young v. Michael J. Astrue 01/25/2011
3:09-cv-01062

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying Claimant’s applications for 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, 13811383f. (Docket No. 1). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Nos. 5 and 6). The case is presently pending before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (Docket Nos. 11 and 15).

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
Cathy Delebreau, et al. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC 01/18/2011
6:09-cv-00245

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 65] and the plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class [Docket 68].  For the reasons discussed below, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part; the plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class is DENIED as moot.  The court ORDERS that judgment be entered for the defendant on Counts One, Two, and Three of the plaintiffs’ Complaint.  The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, and, accordingly, DISMISSES Count Four without prejudice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Tim Collins 01/18/2011
3:10-cv-01099

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This is an action for declaratory relief brought by the plaintiff CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) against the defendant Tim Collins as the administrator and personal representative of the estate of Willie Collins, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.  CSX seeks a declaration that the defendant must indemnify it for any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of his decision to file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of the decedent.  Further, CSX seeks a declaration that the State court lawsuit is precluded by a release clause signed by the decedent. Currently pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 3] For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
The Kay Company, et al. v. Equitable Production Co. 11/05/2010
2:06-cv-00612

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees, Incentive Awards for Class Representatives, and Reimbursement of Expenses [Docket 215].  Class Counsel1 seek a fee award equivalent to 25% of the Settlement Fund.  Class Counsel also seek $96,113.54 for out-of-pocket expenses and a $25,000 incentive award for each named Class Representative.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Gerald M. Bishop and Diana Bishop v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. 10/20/2010
3:10-cv-00468

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  [Doc. 9].  All issues have been fully briefed, and are now ripe for resolution.  For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al. 10/19/2010
2:09-cv-01000

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the Attorney General’s motion to remand, filed October 13, 2009.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Apogee Coal Company, LLC 10/08/2010
3:07-cv-00413

Order Specifying Relief

On September 1, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and denying Defendant’s Motion to Modify. That Order addressed part of the relief granted but reserved the balance of any relief pending further consideration by the Court.  Since then, the parties have submitted proposals and other information in response to the Order.  Contemporaneously with this Order Specifying Relief, the Court has entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining in more detail the basis for the Court’s decision.  The Court grants additional relief to supplement the relief granted in its September 1, 2010 Order, the provisions of which are incorporated herein. Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages