Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 17]. For the reasons detailed below, the Motion is GRANTED.
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.
2:16-cr-00116
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Recuse [ECF No. 34]. The defendant asks that I recuse myself from this case pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(ii) or § 455(a) because of my son’s past tenure as United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia. For the reasons discussed below, this Motion is DENIED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-11357
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witness [ECF No. 31]. The Motion is GRANTED.1
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:16-cv-02369
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Request for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 6]. The defendant filed its Response [ECF No. 9] and the plaintiff filed his Reply [ECF No. 10], so the Motion is now ripe for adjudication. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:12-cv-03386
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The issue before the court is the constitutionality of holding a man in prison for more than twenty-five years after the state convicted him using false testimony and the state circuit court inexplicably allowed his habeas petition to languish for over two decades.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:16-cv-01701
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the Combined Motion to Dismiss & Memorandum of Law in Support [ECF No. 3] (“Motion”) filed by the defendant, Arley Johnson.1 The plaintiff, Lone Wolfe Natural Resource Services Inc. (“Lone Wolfe”), did not file a timely response, making the Motion ripe for adjudication. However, for reasons discussed below, the court concludes this case should be STAYED pending the conclusion of the related bankruptcy proceedings. Because these proceedings are stayed, the court DENIES the Motion.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:15-cv-11340
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On December 7, 2015, the Clerk of this court entered a Default [ECF No. 40] against B.E. Koncepts, Inc. (“B.E. Koncepts”) and Powell Contracting and Heavy Equipment, Inc. (“Powell”), pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Order, Dec. 7, 2015 [ECF No. 38]. Now pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Defendants Powell and B. E. Koncepts. [ECF No. 42]. For reasons explained below, the Court SETS ASIDE the Default [ECF No. 40], and accordingly, DENIES the Motion for Entry of Judgment [ECF No. 42].
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
2:16-cv-00265
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 1] (“Complaint”) and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4]. For the reasons detailed below, the court applies the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to this matter and REFERS the issues discussed herein to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for initial consideration of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:15-cv-00271
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is a Motion by West Virginia Coal Association (“WVCA”) to intervene as a defendant in this administrative review action. ECF No. 20. In this case, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (“OVEC”) and others (collectively “Plaintiffs”) have challenged an action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge EPA’s approval of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s (“WVDEP”) decision to not develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”) for certain West Virginia streams previously identified as “biologically impaired” due to “ionic stress.” Plaintiffs seek an order that declares EPA’s approval in violation of law, and which requires EPA to develop TMDLs for ionic toxicity for the identified streams. WVCA claims that its intervention in this case is warranted as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and alternatively, permissibly under Rule 24(b). Plaintiffs oppose WVCA’s intervention in this case, and EPA takes no position on intervention. For the reasons offered below, the Court DENIES WVCA’s Motion to Intervene but GRANTS WVCA amicus curiae status in this action.
Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:12-cv-02952
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Design Defect [ECF No. 128], in which they argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin