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.

Hiram Lewis v. The Arthur B. Hodges Center, Inc. 11/15/2002
2:01-cv-01014

Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Order

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Remand. In response, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Also currently pending before the Court is Defendant's, The Arthur B. Hodges Center, Inc.'s, Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Defendant's, The Arthur B. Hodges Center, Inc.'s, Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant filed its Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Having reviewed both motions, all memoranda of law both in support and opposition, as well as all relevant case and statutory law, the Court is now prepared to issue its decision.

Author:
Elizabeth V. Hallanan
Dianna Mae Savilla v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, et al. 11/03/2002
2:02-cv-01004

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to remand, in which the plaintiff contends that the defendants’ notice of removal to this court was premature. [Docket 6].   The defendants argue that their notice of removal was timely, as it was filed in accordance with the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).  Section 1446(b) allows removal within thirty days of a defendant’s receipt of a document “from which it may first be ascertained that the case . . . has become removable.”  28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (2002).   For the reasons discussed herein, the court FINDS that a case may not be removed pursuant to the second paragraph of § 1446(b) until a pleading giving rise to federal jurisdiction has been filed.  As the defendants’ notice of removal was filed upon the entry of a state court order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to assert federal claims, rather than upon the filing of the amended complaint itself, the defendants’ removal was premature. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
James Adkins and Virginia Adkins v. Service Wire Company 10/31/2002
3:02-cv-00982

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is defendant Service Wire Company’s motion to transfer venue [Docket 7].  For the following reasons, the court DENIES the defendant’s motion.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Erin B. Schenzel and Lori Sovel v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Kentucky and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company 10/30/2002
2:02-cv-00958

Order

Pending is plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims of the defendants.  For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion and DISMISSES the defendants’ counterclaims.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Joseph Tyler Deveney v. Board of Education of the County of Kanawha and Dr. Tom Williams 10/25/2002
2:02-cv-00493

Temporary Restraining Order

This matter comes before the court on the motion for temporary restraining order, filed along with the complaint on May 29, 2002, by plaintiff Joseph Tyler Deveney against defendants Kanawha County Board of Education and Dr. Tom Williams (collectively hereinafter “the Board”).  The matter was set for hearing on May 30, 2002, at which time counsel for plaintiff, Alex J. Luchenister and Tom Gillooly, and counsel for defendant, James W. Withrow, appeared.  Upon consideration of the affidavit of plaintiff, exhibits and testimony offered at the hearing of this matter and the stipulation of facts as presented by counsel, the court finds as follows.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
John D. Harrah, M.D. v. Trustmark Insurance Company 10/25/2002
2:02-cv-01078

Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Remand

Pending is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.  The motion is DENIED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Burlington United Methodist Family Services, Inc., et al. v. Nancy Atkins and Paul L. Nusbaum 10/16/2002
2:02-cv-00983

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in part and DISMISSES all counts of the Complaint except Counts IV and VI, alleging a violation of constitutional rights of equal protection and a violation of civil rights.   Count VI is retained solely as it pertains to the equal protection count.  Because Count I for injunctive relief is DISMISSED, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Robert Smith, et al. v. FMC Corporation 10/09/2002
2:95-cv-01098

Memorandum Opinion and Order Approving Settlement

At a fairness hearing held October 2, 2002 came the Plaintiffs by class counsel, Henry Dart and Richard Neely, and came the Defendant, FMC Corporation, by its counsel, Joseph Beeson, for a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
John C. Yoder, et al. v. Margaret L. Workman 10/04/2002
2:02-cv-00139

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining count of this civil action. For reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Lozaro Morales v. Joyce K. Conley 09/26/2002
5:02-cv-00497

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Petitioner Morales brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a writ of habeas corpus.  By standing order, it was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke Vandervort, who has submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (PF&R). Petitioner requested an extension of time to respond to the PF&R, which was granted, and then filed timely objections.  The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which Petitioner objects.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II

Pages