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.

Laurie Forbes v. Boston Scientific Corp. 12/13/2019
2:12-cv-00792

Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum of Law Determining Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC’s Litigation Purchase Agreement is Unenforceable as a Violation of Public Policy. [ECF No. 67]. The instant lawsuit alleges negligence, strict liability and other claims against defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”)1 related to the implantation of pelvic mesh, which was allegedly manufactured by BSC. In the Motion filed by plaintiff, plaintiff seeks a determination by this court that a contract entered into by plaintiff and Prospect Funding Partners, a litigation funding company and nonparty to the instant litigation, is unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. Plaintiff’s claim related to Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC is a separate and distinct contract dispute between plaintiff and a nonparty to the instant action. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy v. Uttam Dhillon, et al. 10/30/2019
2:19-cv-00716

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The question before the court is whether a sufficient factual basis existed to justify the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) issuance of an ex parte emergency order immediately suspending the petitioner’s, Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy (“the Pharmacy”), registration to distribute controlled substances. I find that the DEA did not provide such a factual basis and therefore DISSOLVE the Order of Immediate Suspension of Registration (“ISO”).

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Cole Dylan Cooper 10/08/2019
2:19-cr-00081

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Cooper’s objection to designating his 2015 conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree robbery in West Virginia as a “crime of violence” pursuant to § 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Garland Murray v. Devon Lilly, et al. 09/26/2019
2:18-cv-00942

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendants William Sumpter, Devon Lilly, Donald Slack, James Smith, and Richard Toney’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 131]. The Plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 140], and the Defendants filed a reply [ECF No. 143]. The matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Yvonne Dozier 09/26/2019
2:19-cr-00214

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the proffered guilty plea to Count 1 of the Single Count Information in United States v. Yvonne Dozier. On September 9, 2019, the court conducted a plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, at which time Defendant Dozier pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), Access Device Fraud. In conducting the plea hearing, the court questioned whether a sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty plea in that Defendant Dozier did not obtain the access device, here a State Purchase Card, with the intent to defraud, thereby not satisfying all the elements of the charge. After considering the arguments on both sides, the matter is now ready for the court’s review. The question before the court is whether an unauthorized access device must be obtained with the intent to defraud at the time the access device is acquired, or whether later unauthorized use suffices. For the reasons stated herein, the proffered plea of guilty is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Jason Wattie Buzzard 09/03/2019
2:19-cr-00022

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 20]. The court held a hearing on this Motion on April 24, 2019, and ordered additional briefing. The defendant and the government have submitted additional briefs, and the matter is now ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Nyoka Wurts v. Branch Banking and Trust Company 08/27/2019
2:19-cv-00100

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 8]. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Brandi Martin 04/15/2019
2:19-cr-00038

Memorandum Opinion

Pending before the court was defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice for violation of the Speedy Trial Act.  (ECF No. 37).  The government filed a response in opposition to defendant’s motion, see ECF No. 38, and a pretrial motions hearing was held in this matter on March 26, 2019.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the court GRANTED defendant’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the indictment but DENIED the motion to dismiss with prejudice.  Instead, the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice.  The reasons for that decision follow.

Author:
David A. Faber
Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston, West Virginia v. Scott Pruitt, et al. 10/04/2018
2:16-cv-03060

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed by plaintiff Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston, West Virginia (“Sanitary Board”) on April 12, 2018 [ECF No. 42]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Philip J. Tomashek, II v. Raleigh County Emergency Operating Center, et al. 09/26/2018
2;17-cv-01904

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendants Robert Steven Tanner, A.S. Meadows, J.D. Johnson, and the Raleigh County Commission’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 117]. The plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 122], and the defendants filed a reply [ECF No. 123]. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The principal legal question before the court is one of first impression in this Circuit: Does Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bar § 1983 claims following a plaintiff’s successful completion of a pretrial diversion program? I find that it does not.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages