Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and remand.1 TheCourt DENIES the motion.
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.
2:01-cv-00769
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:01-cv-00181
Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Order
Pending before the court are motions by the United States of America, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Railroad Retirement Board ( “federal defendants”) and by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6). Because it appears from the papers, affidavits, and other proofs that there is no disputed issue of material fact and that judgment for the moving parties is appropriate as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:01-cv-00543
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action. For reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-00030
Memorandum Order
This matter is before the court on the following motions: plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed April 3, 2000; plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim, filed April 7, 2000; plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment, filed October 23, 2000; plaintiff’s renewed motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim, filed October 23, 2000; and defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed November 3, 2000.1
Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
2:00-cv-00799
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Granting Default Judgment and Awarding Damages
This is an action alleging unauthorized use of communications in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and unauthorized reception of cable service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553. Plaintiff, KingvisionPay-Per-View, Ltd., alleges the Defendants, the Admiral’s Anchor, Inc. No. 2 and William E. Arthur, unlawfully and willfully intercepted and exhibited the Evander Holyfield v. Lennox Lewis professional boxing match on March 13, 1999, for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain, and with full knowledge that the program was not to be received or exhibited without authorization.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:01-cv-00634
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court GRANTS the motion.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-01062
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are 1) Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction on Counts One, Two, and/or Three and 2) Defendants Norton and Owens’ (Federal Defendants’) motion to dismiss. For reasons discussed below, the Federal Defendants’ motion is DENIED, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on Counts Two and Three is GRANTED, and the remaining motions are DENIED as moot.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
3:99-cv-00274
Order
Pending before the Court is the January 2, 2001 motion of Defendant C. L. Smith Container Company (C. L. Smith) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court over Defendant C. L. Smith would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as more thoroughly discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:00-cv-00896
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Plaintiffs renewed motion to remand and the updated motion for summary judgment filed by BAS Technical Employment Placement Company (BAS). The Court DENIES the renewed motion to remand and DENIES as moot the updated motion for summary judgment.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-00077
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are motions ( 1) by Plaintiff Sayer Brothers, Inc. (Sayer Brothers) for partial summary judgment on Count 1 (Sayer Brothers' thirty-five million dollar claim for breach of contract) and on Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company's (St. Paul) counterclaim for declaratory judgment on the same issue; (2) by St. Paul for summary judgment denying Sayer Brothers' claim and finding St. Paul not liable for bad faith on its determination not to pay thirty-five million dollars to Sayer Brothers on the claim; (3) by Sayer Brothers for partial summary judgment as to liability alone on Counts 2 and 3 (breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair claims settlement practices); (4) by Third-Party (interpleader) Defendant Ames Department Stores, Inc. (Ames) for partial summary judgment (a) on its claims for compensation from St. Paul and (b) on request for release from its lease with Sayer Brothers on grounds of impossibility; and (5) by Sayer Brothers to dismiss Count II of Ames' Supplemental and Amended Cross-Claims.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II