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.

Shonk Land Company LC v. Ark Land Company 11/08/2001
2:01-cv-00726

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.  Plaintiff Shonk Land Company LLC (“Shonk”) originally filed this action in West Virginia state court on June 14, 2001.  On August 10, 2001, defendant Ark Land Company (“Ark”) removed the action based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).   Shonk now moves this court for remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing that Ark exceeded the 30 day limit for removal. For reasons discussed herein, the motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Anthony George Cook 11/07/2001
2:01-cv-00143

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant’s motion for specific performance of the plea agreement and for recusal of the Court based on the Government’s breach.  The Court DENIES the motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Diana G. McCoy v. Erie Insurance Company, et al. 11/02/2001
2:01-cv-00054

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to delete the existing class action allegations. The sole reason for which Plaintiff putatively seeks dismissal is lack of sufficient time to perform class discovery in aid of certification. Plaintiff, however, has not requested the Court to grant additional time within which to conduct such discovery.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Tina Louise Jeffers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al. 10/31/2001
3:99-cv-00274

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts several state common law claims against Dow Agrosciences LLC (Dow).  Dow is the manufacturer of Dursban HF, a pesticide product used in retail pest control products, including some Spectracide products to which plaintiff alleges she was exposed.  In Count III (“Liability of Product Manufacturers”), plaintiff claims negligence in the design, manufacture, packaging and distribution of pesticide products; failure to warn; failure to provide knowledge of safeguards; negligent packaging and handling, including the failure to warn; and negligent design of the packaging.  Count IV alleges the manufacturer breached warranties of fitness and merchantability in that the packaging and warnings were inadequate. Count V asserts strict liability based on defective design, manufacture and use, again identifying the packaging and warnings.1

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Frank H. Coffman, II v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. 10/29/2001
2:00-cv-01156

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending before the court are the following discovery motions: (1)Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants (Document # 43) and (2) Plaintiff’s Supplemental Hearing Response Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Quash and for Protective Order and Supplemental Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Document # 46). The parties have responded and replied, and the Motions are ripe for decision. (Document ## 48, 54, 55.)

Author:
Mary S. Feinberg
Lisa Kidd, et al. v. Rebecca Lynn Gilfilen, et al. 10/29/2001
2:01-cv-00769

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and remand.1 TheCourt DENIES the motion.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Richard C. Rashid, M.D. and Medical Leasing and Supply Company v. United States of America, et al. 10/19/2001
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
Michael McCallister and William Duffield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 09/27/2001
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
Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc. v Michael H. Holland, et al. 09/21/2001
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.
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, LTD. v. Admiral's Anchor, Inc. No. 2 and William E. Arthur 09/19/2001
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

Pages