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 Opinion and Order
The court must decide whether, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to accept or reject the plea agreement between the defendant, Mr. Charles York Walker, and the government. While Rule 11 gives defendants and prosecutors the ability to enter into plea agreements, it also obligates judges to accept or reject those agreements.1 Rule 11 is silent on what the court should or may consider in its decision.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 27]. The government filed its Response [ECF No. 33], and at the direction of the court, both parties provided supplemental briefing [ECF Nos. 40, 49, 50]. The matter is now ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On February 14, 2017, I directed the parties to submit simultaneous briefing regarding the contours of what an alternative, feasible design can be under West Virginia law. I asked the parties to cover this issue as broadly as possible, taking into consideration the multiple tort theories available to a plaintiff under West Virginia law. On February 20, 2017, the parties filed their respective briefs [ECF Nos. 1867 & 1868]. On February 21, 2017, the parties filed their respective responses [ECF Nos. 1872 & 1873]. This Order will discuss many of the legal arguments made by the parties in their briefing and at the February 22, 2017, final pretrial conference.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Order re: Ethicon's Motion for Reconsideration)
Pending before the court is a Motion to Reconsider Alternative Design Ruling or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify Question to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals [ECF No. 819] filed by the defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively “Ethicon”). The plaintiffs filed a Response [ECF No. 903], and Ethicon filed a Reply [ECF No. 922]. For the reasons provided below, Ethicon’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Ethicon’s alternative Motion to Certify Question is DENIED as moot.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 16]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 18] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 19] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On November 18, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiffs Financial Information, (ECF No.181), and Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, (ECF No. 182). Having considered the written materials and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for sanctions as set forth below.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
It is ORDERED that the court’s November 18, 2016, Memorandum Opinion & Order [ECF No. 17] is amended for minor typographical changes.
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 15] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 16] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 16]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 21] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 22] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiff responded [ECF No. 16] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 17] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 16] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 17] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.