Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of all Defendants except Edgar W. Friedrichs, Jr. (Friedrichs) to dismiss this action because its claims are time-barred and because it fails to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
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.
5:03-cv-00334
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:93-cr-00191
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is a petition to revoke Defendant's supervised release. On October 20, 2003 came the Defendant, David Hamler, Jr., in person and with counsel, Michael L. Dasautels, Assistant Federal Public Defender and came the Government, by Assistant United States Attorney Stephanie L. Ojeda. Came also the Probation Officer, Lola I. Toney, for a hearing on the petition.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:01-cv-00835
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is HealthNet, Inc.’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel [Docket 148]. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:03-cv-00667
Opinion
Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss its Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act Claims (doc. 5). For the reasons given below, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and, accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.
Author:
David A. Faber
5:03-cv-00667
Remand Order
For the reasons discussed in the court’s Memorandum Opinion filed today, the court finds that this action was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction. It is therefore ORDERED that this action be, and it is hereby, remanded to the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia.
Author:
David A. Faber
3:03-cv-00613
Order
Pending is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the above-styled action to the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:03-cv-00021
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company’s (“Sears”) motion for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS the motion.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:03-cr-00129
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On June 23, 2003, the defendant, Keith Andrew Lilly, pled guilty to two counts of Aiding and Abetting in the Armed Robbery of a Mail Custodian, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2114(a) (2003). The probation office then conducted a presentence investigation and prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The defendant made two objections to the PSR. First, the defendant objected to the application of a six level increase to his base offense level made pursuant to § 2B3.1.(b)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2B3.1.(b)(2) (Nov. 2002) (USSG or Guidelines). Under § 2B3.1.(b)(2), a defendant’s offense level is increased by six “if a firearm is otherwise used” in the commission of a robbery. USSG § 2B3.1.(b)(2). The court FINDS that the defendant “otherwise used” a firearm when he pointed a gun at the victim and used the gun to coerce and to threaten the victim. See id. Therefore, the PSR correctly increased the defendant’s offense level by six. See id. Second, the defendant objected to the application of a two-level increase to Count One for “restraint of the victim.” USSG § 2B3.1.(b)(4)(B). The court FINDS that the defendant’s act of pointing a gun at the victim during a robbery did not constitute “physical restraint” of the victim within the meaning of USSG § 2B3.1.(b)(4)(B). Therefore, as to Count One, the PSR’s application of the two-level increase for physical restraint was incorrect.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:03-cv-00020
Order
Pending before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, National Medical Care, Inc., d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America (Fresenius), for preliminary injuction [Docket 4]. For the reasons discussed below, this motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:02-cv-01991
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The above-styled matter is currently before the Court on appeal from a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Person J., dated June 4, 2002. Judge Ronald G. Pearson entered a Final Order Dismissing Case in which the court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding with prejudice and denied Defendant's Motion Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing or any other proceedings in this matter. Additionally, the Final Order Dismissing Case ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Adversary Proceeding was dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own cost, and that there shall be no further proceedings held in this matter before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Author:
Elizabeth V. Hallanan