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 this court is petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and reinstate his sentence. The petitioner asserts that his attorney’s ineffective assistance denied his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. For reasons discussed herein, the court GRANTS the motion.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this court is the plaintiffs’ motion to remand [Docket 3]. The plaintiffs seek to remand this civil action to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Plaintiffs allege that the notice of removal was either (1) filed before dismissal of the only nondiverse defendant, and therefore premature, or in the alternative, (2) filed more than thirty days after the running of the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and therefore time-barred. For the reasons stated below, the court rejects these arguments and DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to remand.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia [Docket 6]. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Delimdants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that roll ow herein the Court DENIES the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on the liled rate doctrine and preemption, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion lo dismiss based on faih.tre to state a claim under antitrust law and common law claims.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are the motions of the defendants to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment; the motion of the defendant United Mine Workers International, joined by the other defendants, to dismiss or for summary judgment on the amended complaint; the renewed motion to dismiss of the defendants United Mine Workers, District 17 and Local No. 5396; the motion of the plaintiff for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants’ motions; and the motion of the defendant American Electric Power Company to strike the plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, filed May 3, 2005. Pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), the court ordered the trial of this action advanced and consolidated with the hearing on plaintiff’s motion. The parties consented to this action both prior to, and during, the bench trial conducted on May 9, 2005.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of the plaintiff to determine an award of fees to Edison Hill and the law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler. The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefings and heard oral argument in this matter on May 23 and 24, 2005. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion and AWARDS as reasonable attorney fees to Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler an amount equal to ten percent of the settlement and expenses as set forth herein.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On February 16, 2005, Massachusetts Mutual (“Mass Mutual”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking Plaintiff’s answers to certain of its interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (Docket # 34.) Mass Mutual had served Plaintiff, LaDonna Saria (“Saria”), with 28 interrogatories, many of which contained subparts. The number of interrogatories, including these subparts, exceeded the limit (50) which the parties had agreed upon. Saria initially lodged a numerousity objection to all interrogatories, and did not answer any of them. She later agreed to answer those interrogatories “to which [she] had no objection”, and apparently selected those to which she responded. However, certain of Saria’s answers were simple references to other pleadings rather than responses crafted to answer the interrogatory. Saria raised relevancy and undue hardship objections to various interrogatories and requests as well. Saria’s responses were neither verified nor signed.
Memorandum Opinion
The defendant in this case was sentenced on April 21, 2005, to a term of imprisonment of ten years to be followed by an eight-year term of supervised release. The reasons for this sentence are fully set forth herein.
Order
Pending before the court are the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, filed July 3, 2002, and plaintiff Teresa Icenhour's motion for partial summary judgment filed July 17, 2002.