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.
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.
2:04-cv-00567
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.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:04-cv-01230
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.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:05-cv-00355
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.
Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
3:04-cv-00489
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.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:04-cv-00382
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.
Author:
Mary E. Stanley
2:04-cr-00142
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.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:01-cv-00807
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.
Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
3:00-cv-00058
Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Attorney Fees
Plaintiff Hominy Creek Preservation Association, Inc. (HCPA) petitions the Court for an award of attorney fees and litigation costs against Green Valley Coal Company (Green Valley), an intervenor subsequently made a defendant in this action. This lawsuit was brought under the citizen suit provisions in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). HCPA contends that the applicable standard found in 30 U.S.C. § 1270(d)1 entitles it to an award despite the fact that its lawsuit, insofar as against Green Valley, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily by HCPA prior to an adjudication on the merits. HCPA argues that certain remedial environmental action was undertaken by Green Valley in response to the lawsuit or in response to the regulatory actions which HCPA prompted. For the reasons cited below, the Court GRANTS IN PART HCPA’s Petition.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
3:03-cr-00182
Order
Since 1987, district court judges have determined criminal sentences pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA), Pub. L. 98-473, Title II, §§ 211-238, 98 Stat. 1987 (1984) and the Guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (Jan. 12, 2005), significantly alters the sentencing scheme that has existed since 1987. In accordance with the Booker decision, I conducted the sentencing hearing in the instant case as follows.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin