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.

William Tolley, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al. 12/19/2008
3:08-cv-01305

Order

Pending before the court are the defendants’ Letter-Form Motion to Stay Proceedings [Docket 6],1 the Plaintiffs2 Motion to Stay Transfer of this Case and Other “Parallel Litigations” Pending the Court’s Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Docket 7], and the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand  Due to Untimely Removal and to Recover Costs and Attorneys Fees [Docket 9].  For the reasons discussed herein, the Letter-Form Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED, the Motion to Stay Transfer of this Case is DENIED as moot, and the Motion to Remand is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
William R. Rhodes, et al. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company 09/30/2008
6:06-cv-00530

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket 188].  The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of people allegedly harmed by C-8 contamination of their drinking water supply.  The plaintiffs have presented compelling evidence that exposure to C-8 may be harmful to human health, and the evidence certainly justifies the concerns expressed by the plaintiffs in this case.   What the plaintiffs misunderstand, however, is what they must show in order for me to certify the class.  I cannot certify a class based on some potential harm to the general public, rather, there must be specific injuries to each member of the proposed class.  The fact that a public health risk may exist is more than enough to raise concern in the community and call government agencies to action, but it does not show the common individual injuries needed to certify a class action.  For the reasons set forth below, this court FINDS that the proposed class does not satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
In Re: David Douglas Jones and Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC v. David Douglas Jones, et al. 09/29/2008
2:07-cv-00709

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is an appeal by DaimlerChrysler challenging the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the plaintiffs’ adversary proceeding.  That proceeding concerned DaimlerChrysler’s repossession of the plaintiffs’ vehicle.  DaimlerChrysler claimed that it was entitled to repossess the vehicle because the plaintiffs were in default under the contract for sale once the debtor had filed for bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy court held that DaimlerChrysler violated W. Va. Code § 46A-2-106 by repossessing the vehicle without first giving the plaintiffs notice of a right to cure the default.  As a result, the bankruptcy court permanently enjoined DaimlerChrysler from repossessing the plaintiffs’ vehicle on the basis of the bankruptcy filing.   For the reasons stated herein, the court REVERSES the bankruptcy court’s order and REMANDS the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Harvey P. Short v. Vickie Greene, et al. 09/23/2008
2:07-cv-00968

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This action was previously referred to Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Luther C. Basham v. Thomas L. McBride, et al. 09/04/2008
5:04-cv-01335

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Plaintiff, pro se, an inmate at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex (MOCC) in Mount Olive, West Virginia, brings this action against various prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they disciplined him based on comments he made to a family friend during two telephone conversations at MOCC.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Gary W. Muffley v. Massey Energy Company, et al. 09/01/2008
2:08-cv-00073

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the petitioner’s Petition for Injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as Amended [Docket 1].  I held a hearing on the petition on May 8 and 9, 2008, and have received post-hearing briefs from the parties and the amicus curiae. For reasons set forth below, the petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The respondents are ORDERED, within 15 days of this order, to offer in writing interim employment on the terms described below to those individuals named below.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. James Michael Nichols 07/03/2008
2:07-cr-00192

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant in this case was sentenced on June 23, 2008, to a term of imprisonment of 63 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.  The reasons for this sentence are set forth below.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. v. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. 06/26/2008
2:08-cv-00165

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. For reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Because I find as a matter of law that the defendant’s subpoena cannot lawfully be enforced against Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the defendant and his agents are (1) permanently ENJOINED from issuing subpoenas or demanding the inspection of the books and records of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,  in connection with the defendant’s investigation into credit card lending, and (2) permanently ENJOINED from seeking to enforce the subpoena referenced in State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V . McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, v. Capital One Bank, Misc. Action No. 05-C-71 (Circuit Court of Lincoln County). Because I find that Capital One Services, Inc., is not protected by the National Bank Act, the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the defendant’s subpoena of Capital One Services, Inc., are DISMISSED with prejudice. Likewise, the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
William R. Rhodes, et al. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company 06/11/2008
6:06-cv-00530

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket 188]. Under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must determine whether to certify the action as a class action “[a]t an early practicable time.”  This determination should only be made “when the court has sufficient information to decide whether the action meets the certification criteria of Rules 23(a) and (b).”  Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 21.133 (2004). For the reasons stated below, this court FINDS that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the requirements of Rule 23.  The court ORDERS that a preliminary class certification hearing be held on July 2, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Charleston.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
William R. Rhodes, et al. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company 06/10/2008
6:06-cv-00530

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Dr. Elizabeth L. Anderson as an expert witness for the defendant [Docket 170].  For reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages