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.

Sylvia Claudette Vass v. Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., et al. 01/16/2004
2:03-cv-02286

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are the motions of Volvo Logistics North America, Inc. (Volvo Logistics)  1) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process, 2) to transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, and 3) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the last motion made jointly with Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo Trucks).  The motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process are DENIED without prejudice.  Because the Court also GRANTS the motion to transfer the action to the Bluefield division, the remaining motion will be transferred to Chief Judge Faber for resolution.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Linda Plemons v. Douglas Q. Gale, et al. 01/13/2004
2:03-cv-00418

Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 13]. The plaintiff originally petitioned the Circuit CourtofKanawha County, West Virginia to set aside a deed to her property that the defendants obtained through West Virginia's tax sale procedure. The defendants timely removed the action to this court which has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Sean Moore 01/06/2004
5:03-cr-00262

Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment filed in this case (doc. no. 9).   The Court has considered the motion, the Government’s response, and the evidence and oral argument received on January 5, 2004.  For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Karen A. Grennell, et al. v. Western Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. 01/06/2004
3:03-cv-00833

Order

Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.  For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Grant Thornton, LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12/31/2003
1:00-cv-00655

Memorandum Opinion

By Order dated December 31, 2003, the court denied Grant Thornton’s Motion to Disqualify the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) Expert, Douglas Carmichael (doc. # 25).  The reasons for that decision follow.

Author:
David A. Faber
Grant Thornton, LLP v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12/31/2003
1:00-cv-00655

Order

Pending before the court is Grant Thornton’s Motion to Disqualify the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) Expert, Douglas Carmichael (doc. # 25).  For reasons discussed in the memorandum opinion to be filed forthwith, that motion is DENIED.

Author:
David A. Faber
United States of America v. Calvin Dyess, et al. 12/17/2003
2:99-cr-00012

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are Defendants’ motions for various forms of relief in this case, which was remanded from our Court of Appeals before decision on direct appeal.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Brian K. Marks and Jennifer D. Marks v. Global Mortgage Group, Inc., et al. 11/21/2003
6:02-cv-00911

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Defendant Wachovia’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order compelling discovery of the non-public personal information of the defendant’s customers.  For the reasons that follow, the court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s order.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Naomi McDavid v. United States of America 11/21/2003
3:01-cv-00760

Order

Currently pending before the Court are two interrelated motions by the Government. In its first motion, the Government requests the Court dismiss Plaintiff Naomi McDavid’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and/or for summary judgment. In its second motion, the Government asks the Court to dismiss Mrs. McDavid’s wrongful death and loss of consortium claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Upon review, and for the following reasons, the Court DENIES both motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
James Allen Harper et al. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, et al. 11/19/2003
2:03-cv-00516

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the court are (1) a Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) and its Commissioners, named in their official capacities (collectively referred to as “PSC Defendants”), on August 5, 2003 (docket sheet document # 18); (2) a Motion to Dismiss, filed August 6, 2003, by the WV Association of Solid Waste Haulers and Recyclers (“SWH”) (# 20); and (3) a Motion to Dismiss, filed August 6, 2003, by BFI Waste Systems of North America (“BFI”) (# 22).  Plaintiffs responded on August 20, 2003 (# 28), and the PSC Defendants (# 31) and BFI (# 32) replied on September 2, 2003, and September 4, 2003, respectively.  The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the motions are now ripe for decision.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley

Pages