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.

Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. 05/07/2014
2:12-cv-07997

Memorandum Opinion and Order

In West Virginia, lender liability suits have taken a strange turn that threatens to uproot basic principles of contract law. The plaintiffs in these suits, homeowners tied to mortgages, have concocted a novel theory of injury. That theory is as follows: refinancing a home for more than its fair market value is one-sided and overly harsh against the borrower, justifying rescission of a home loan. I have concluded that this theory is absurd. But it has been repeatedly accepted by other judges. Therefore, with some trepidation, I will explain my view, beginning with the bald statement that neither West Virginia law nor cases outside of this state support the notion that lending too much money is unfair.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
W.W. McDonald Land Co., et al. v. EQT Production Company, et al. 01/21/2014
2:11-cv-00418

Clarification of Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification [Docket 221]. The plaintiffs seek clarification of my Memorandum Opinion and Order, W.W. McDonald Land Co. v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 2:11-cv-00418, 2013 WL 6098497 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 21, 2013). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED insofar as I offer the clarifications below. 

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Carolyn Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. 01/15/2014
2:12-cv-04301

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motion in Limine No. 1, Summary Judgment Motions on 510(k) Issue)

Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 – 510(k) Clearance of the Ethicon Mesh Products by the United State Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), or Lack of FDA Enforcement Action [Docket 124], Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Preemption of Certain Claims [Docket 128], and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket 150]. The motions are ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 [Docket 124] is GRANTED, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Preemption of Certain Claims [Docket 128] is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket 150] is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Jeff Corr v. Bureau of the Public Debt 12/19/2013
6:11-cv-00865

Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Jeff Corr’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 12] and Defendant Bureau of the Public Debt, United States Department of the Treasury’s cross motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment [Docket 14]...

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Cheryl Dougherty v. Ramona Cerra, et al. 12/19/2013
2:13-cv-08472

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are Plaintiffs’ motion to remand [ECF 14] and Defendants’ motion for leave to file a surreply [ECF 22]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand, and this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave to file a surreply.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Emmanuel O. Soyoola v. Oceanus Insurance Company, et al. 12/12/2013
2:13-cv-08907

Order

Pending before the court is Emmanuel O. Soyoola’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Docket 33]. This motion is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the motion [Docket 33] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Quincy Gray McMichael Lewis v. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 12/05/2013
2:13-cv-13110

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The plaintiff in this case disagrees with a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) and asks this court to declare that decision unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. But the plaintiff cannot sue the SCAWV or its justices because the plaintiff disagrees with its decision. If the plaintiff disagrees with a SCAWV decision, she may file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. She did that. Accordingly, for bringing this lawsuit when it is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and for the reasons set forth in this opinion, the plaintiff’s counsel, Wendy J. Murphy, is SANCTIONED in the amount of $450, with payment to be made to the court within sixty (60) days of this Order.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Hernshaw Partners, LLC 12/02/2013
2:13-cv-14851

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Civil Penalties [Docket 19]. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file their proposed amended complaint within ten days of this Order. 

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
W.W. McDonald Land Co., et al. v. EQT Production Company, et al. 11/21/2013
2:11-cv-00418

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket 131], and multiple motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants [Dockets 133, 143, and 169]. For the reasons stated below, the following is ORDERED: With respect to Count II (breach of contract), the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket 131] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this opinion; the Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 169] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this opinion; and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants EQT Corporation, EQT Energy, LLC, EQT Gathering, Inc. EQT Gathering Equity, LLC, EQT Investment Holdings, LLC, and EQT Gathering, LLC [Docket 133] is DENIED. With respect to Count III (breach of fiduciary duty) the defendants’ motions [Docket 133 and 143] are GRANTED. With respect to Count I (failure to account), Count IV (fraud), Count V (negligent misrepresentation), Count VI (civil conspiracy/joint venture), Count VII (aiding and abetting a tort), and Count VIII (punitive damages), the defendants’ motions [Dockets 133, 143, and 169] are DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Joseph K Backus v. City of Parkersburg, et al. 11/05/2013
6:12-cv-02518

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Now before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law [Docket 32] and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34]. These motions are ripe for review. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law [Docket 32] is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34] is GRANTED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages