Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s 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.
2:00-cv-00618
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
6:01-cv-00318
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment on the issue whether Defendant Westfield Insurance Company (Westfield) is required, under its policy of insurance issued to Plaintiff Community Antenna Services, Inc. (CAS), to provide a defense in an underlying civil action in Wood County, West Virginia. It is not. For reasons discussed below, Westfield’s motion is GRANTED and CAS’s motion is DENIED. Judgment will be entered in favor of Westfield.
Author:
Charles H. Haden II
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
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
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
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
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
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
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