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 are motions to dismiss filed by defendant Secretary of the Department of Revenue James Robert Alsop (“Secretary”) and defendant Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. (“Attorney General”), filed respectively on July 16 and 18, 2007. Pending also is the plaintiffs’ motion to submit a surreply, filed August 22, 2007, which is hereby ORDERED granted.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This case involves several environmental groups’ challenge to the Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) decision to issue a nationwide permit, NWP 21, authorizing the discharge of dredged and fill material associated with surface coal mining activities, which includes mountaintop mining. Under this controversial method of mining, coal seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill are reached by blasting and removing each layer of rock above the seam. The mountain is demolished layer by layer as each layer of rock and coal is removed until the cost of proceeding exceeds the value of the remaining coal. During this process, the removed rock is placed in adjacent valleys and, once the coal is extracted, replaced in an attempt to recreate the contour of the mountain. See Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Assoc., 248 F.3d 275, 286 (4th Cir. 2001). This dirt and rock, called overburden or spoil, “swells” or increases in size by as much as 25%, creating excess material not needed to rebuild the mountain. Id. As Judge Haden explained, “[t]he overburden . . . is disposed of by creating valley fills, that is, literally, filling the valleys with waste rock and dirt.” Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh (“Rivenburgh I”), 204 F. Supp. 2d 927, 92930 (S.D. W. Va. 2002). These valley fills permanently eliminate previously existing valley streams. In the past twenty years, thousands of miles of streams in Appalachia, constituting over 2% of the streams in the area, have been impacted by the discharges associated with mountaintop mining. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement at III.D-2 (2003) (“DPEIS”). In West Virginia alone, over 200 miles of streams have been permanently lost. DPEIS at III.K-49.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3). At this stage, Plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary for preliminary relief. He has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that the balance of harms tips decidedly in his favor, or that the public interest compels the issuance of such an order. For these reasons, more fully explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket 8], Defendants Bluestone Coal Corporation (Bluestone), Bluestone Industries, Inc., and Double-Bonus Coal Company’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 16], and Defendants’ Request to Present Oral Argument [Docket 21]. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for the Court’s review.
Order
Pending before the court is Defendant CashCall’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 7], and the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Docket 14]. For the reasons herein, the plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Defendant CashCall’s Motion is DENIED as moot.
Order
Pending before the court is Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses [Docket 180]. Class Counsel1 seeks a fee award equivalent to 25% of the Settlement Fund of approximately $50 million. Class Counsel also seeks $91,883.50 for out-of-pocket expenses and a $25,000 incentive award for each named Class Representative.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are separate motions for summary judgment by (1) plaintiffs BlueHippo Funding, LLC (“BlueHippo Funding”), and BlueHippo Capital, L.L.C. (“BlueHippo Capital”), (2) defendant Secretary of the Department of Revenue Virgil T. Helton (“Secretary”), and (3) defendant Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. (“Attorney General”), all filed May 8, 2008.1
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order1
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff West Virginians for Life’s (WVFL) Motion for Preliminary Injunction2 [Docket 112], Plaintiff Center for Individual Freedom, Inc.’s (CFIF) Emergency Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket 90], Intervenor Defendant Margaret L. Workman’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 99], Defendant Betty Ireland’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 103] and Motion to Strike [Docket 105], and WVFL’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket 106]. The Court will address each motion in turn.
Memorandum Opinion
By Order entered December 17, 2008, the court denied the motion of Robert E. Graham (“Graham”) for a Certificate of Innocence under 28 U.S.C. § 2513. The reasons for that decision follow.
Memorandum Opinion
The Kanawha County School Board adopted a revised drug testing policy mandating the random testing of teachers and other categories of public school employees. The teachers’ unions have joined forces in this lawsuit seeking to enjoin the implementation of that policy on constitutional and privacy grounds. The questions before the court are whether the random drug testing policy adopted by the Board as a state actor violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution, and the right to privacy as it is recognized in this state. The evidence does not demonstrate either that these employees have a reduced expectation of privacy by virtue of their employment in a public school or that there is a special governmental need to guard against a concrete risk of great harm. I therefore find that because the safety justification offered by the Board does not outweigh the privacy interests of the school employees, the Board may not abandon the Fourth Amendment’s protection against suspicionless searches. Consequently, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and I preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the random drug testing policy.