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.

2:20-cv-00732

ORDER

Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants Charleston Hospital, Inc., Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital Association, THS Physicians Partners, Inc., Thomas Health System, Inc., and Brian Ulery ("Defendants"). [ECF No. 56]. Plaintiff Relator Liesa Kyer ("Relator") responded, [ECF No. 60], and Defendants timely replied, [ECF No. 61].

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
5:15-cr-000128

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant Kenyata E. Smith’s Letter-Form Motion to Seal or Expunge
Record [Doc. 27], filed August 8, 2022.
Ms. Smith seeks expungement of her misdemeanor criminal conviction solely on
equitable grounds, namely that the conviction’s appearance in the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (“NCIS”) report is interfering with her ability to obtain employment...

Author:
Frank W. Volk
5:24-cv-00072

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Defendant Greenbrier Outfitters, Inc. d/b/a Broadmoor Outfitters’ (“Broadmoor Outfitters”) Motion to Set Aside Default [Doc. 12], filed May 10, 2024.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
5:24-mc-00112

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pursuant to a Notice to Appear for Petit Jury Service sent by the United States District Clerk’s office on April 16, 2024, Michael Lee Roselle was instructed to report for petit jury service in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on April 29, 2024.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
5:23-cv-00547

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff Priscilla Felton’s Motion to Remand [Docs. 6, 7], filed September 13, 2023. Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. 11] on September 27, 2023, to which Ms. Felton replied [Doc.12] on October 4, 2023. The matter is ready for adjudication.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
2:19-cv-00878

Memorandum Opinion And Order

This case involves a proposed medical monitoring class action against Defendants Union Carbide Corporation and Covestro, LLC, as the owners and operators of a manufacturing facility (the “Plant”) in South Charleston, West Virginia, for alleged emissions of ethylene oxide (“EtO”), a known carcinogen. Plaintiff and proposed class members reside in neighborhoods surrounding the Plant, and their lawsuit is based on an alleged significant increase in their risk of developing cancer as a result of the Defendants’ alleged EtO emissions.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
1:21-cv-00328

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Defendant Deputy Commissioner G. Russell Rollyson, Jr.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 47], and Plaintiffs Ann Barclay deWet and Laurence E.T. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 51], both filed September 22, 2023.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
5:22-cr-00219

Memorandum Opinion And Order

Pending is Defendant Paul Richard Massey’s Motion to Modify Sentence [ECF 83], filed January 8, 2024. The Government responded on January 16, 2024 [ECF 86]. The matter is ready for adjudication.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
5:18-cv-01336

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership’s (“Komatsu”) (1) Renewed Motion for Order of Payment By Southern Coal Corporation (“Southern”) to Komatsu Pursuant to Suggestion [ECF Nos. 182-2; 220], filed April 28, 2023, and (2) First Amended Motion for Further Proceedings Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 38-5-18 on James C. Justice Companies, Inc.’s (“JCJC”) Answer to Suggestion (“First Amended Motion”) [ECF 199], filed May 31, 2023.

Author:
Frank W. Volk
2:22-cv-00168

Memorandum Opinion And Order

Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary filed by Defendant Ranger Scientific, LLC (“Ranger”) [ECF No. 51], and Plaintiff North Avenue Capital, LLC (“NAC”), [ECF No. 53]. Because the motions raise substantially similar arguments in favor of summary judgment, I will dispose of them together. For the reasons stated herein, NAC’s Motion [ECF No. 53] is DENIED, and Ranger’s Motion [ECF No. 51] is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages