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.
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
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court GRANTS the motion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposed Findings and Recommendations
By Amended Standing Order entered October 6, 2000, the District Court referred this civil action to this Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendation for disposition (document # 74). Now pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Wolfe (# 77). The motion is supported by a memorandum with exhibits (“Def. Mem.,” # 78). Plaintiff, by counsel, filed a response in opposition (“Pl. Resp.,” # 80) with exhibits, and Defendant filed a Reply (# 81) with exhibits.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendants’ motion to dismiss.1 Both motions are DENIED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of Plaintiff West Virginia Housing Development Fund (the Fund) to modify the Scheduling Order and Amend its Complaint. The motion is GRANTED.