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
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is Defendant Andre Womble’s (“Womble”) Motion to Suppress Statements, ECF No. 30. The sole issue is whether Womble unambiguously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when, after being informed he was under arrest and during interrogation, he said, “[i]f I am under arrest, take me to my bunk; all these questions, we can just skip them because I want to go to court.” 1For the reasons explained below, the Court holds that Womble’s statement was an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent. Because detectives did not cease questioning after Womble invoked his right to remain silent, the Court GRANTS Womble’s Motion to suppress his statements made after he invoked his right.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
At sentencing this Court addressed an objection by Defendant, Jazzmyn Litzy (“Ms. Litzy”) to the Probation Office’s recommendation that this Court apply the career offender enhancement of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”) § 4B1.1 to Ms. Litzy’s sentence. The Court was tasked with deciding whether Ms. Litzy’s robbery conviction under Ohio law qualified as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the career offender enhancement. As explained below, the Court ruled that a prior robbery conviction under Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2911.02(A)(3) cannot qualify under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines career offender enhancement as a predicate conviction for a crime of violence. Therefore, the career offender enhancement may not be applied in Ms. Litzy’s sentencing.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Ford Motor Company to Produce Documents Listed in its Supplemental ASO (Automotive Safety Office) Privilege Log and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 536)1.1 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) has filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion, (ECF No. 551), and Plaintiffs have replied, (ECF No. 569). Plaintiffs’ motion relates to 132 documents that Ford has claimed are shielded from discovery due to attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product immunity. (ECF No. 536-7 at 3-68). On August 18, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and ruled that the supplemental privilege log supplied by Ford was insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A). (ECF No. at 591 at 51, 54). This memorandum opinion and order follows the Court’s ruling and confirms that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED insofar as Ford will be required to again supplement its ASO privilege log with more detail describing the documents therein. Ford is ORDERED to provide the updated ASO privilege log to Plaintiffs within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. In addition, Plaintiffs are GRANTED reasonable fees and costs associated with bringing this motion. Plaintiffs are instructed to provide the requisite information regarding fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.