Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer this action to the Western District of Virginia. These motions are 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.
2:02-cv-00338
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:02-cv-00484
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Currently pending before the court is the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendants with Regard to Counts I, III, IV, VI and VIII of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Defendants’ Individual Liability, filed April 11, 2003. (Docket Sheet Document # 54.) The parties have responded (# 90) and replied (# 102) and, with leave of court, Plaintiff filed a surreply as well (# 106). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the District Court, upon consent of the parties, designated the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this matter. (# 16.)
Author:
Mary E. Stanley
2:03-cv-00308
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are plaintiff Eastern Associated Coal Corporation's petition to compel arbitration [Docket 3] and defendant Shelby Skaggs's motion to dismiss [Docket 8] and motion to file a joint memorandum [Docket 6]. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff's petition to compel arbitration and GRANTS Mr. Skaggs's motion to dismiss. The court also DISMISSES as moot Mr. Skaggs's motion to file a joint memorandum.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:03-cv-00342
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are plaintiff Pine Ridge Coal Company’s petition to compel arbitration [Docket 4] and defendant Phillip Loftis’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 6]. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration, DENIES Mr. Loftis’s motion for summary judgment, ORDERS Mr. Loftis to submit to the grievance-arbitration process all claims asserted in the case of Loftis v. Pine Ridge Coal Company, Civ. Act. No. 03-C-23, now pending in Boone County Circuit Court, and ENJOINS Mr. Loftis from further prosecuting his claims in state court.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:02-cv-00998
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs [Docket 26]. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion, ORDERS Brunty to reimburse Mr. Craft $3,359.27 for his past medical expenses, and ORDERS Brunty to provide Mr. Craft with lifetime health benefits as required by the collective bargaining agreement.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:01-cv-00770
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental Complaint setting forth events that have occurred since the filing of the original Complaint and adding a new claim for relief based on those events. For reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:02-cr-00264
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This matter came before the court on the government’s objection to the defendant’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The court overruled the government’s objection to the PSR at the defendant’s sentencing hearing on May 13, 2003. The court FOUND that the defendant’s prior state convictions for burglaries of commercial dwellings were not “crimes of violence” for purposes of sentence enhancement under section 2K2.1(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) and the career enhancement provisions of the Guidelines. The court now writes to explain that ruling.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:02-cv-00093
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants D. Ed Swepston and the City of White Sulphur Springs. The Court GRANTS the motion.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:03-cv-00506
Order
Pending before the court are: (1) the motion of the plaintiffs for summary remand, or in the alternative, expedited consideration of their motion to remand [Docket 11], and (2) the motion of the defendants to dismiss [Docket 5]. For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary remand is GRANTED, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:03-cv-00132
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Currently pending before the Court are motions by Plaintiff Sarah Harless to Amend the Complaint and Remand this action to the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS, in part, DENIES, in part, and HOLDS IN ABEYANCE, in part, the motion to amend; DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand; and DENIES, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers