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.

2:13-cv-26419

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless’s (“Verizon”) Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration [Docket 8], Motion to Suspend Deadlines Pending Resolution of its Motion to Compel [Docket 19], and Motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery [Docket 28]. The decisive issue before me is whether the parties’ arbitration agreement, if entered into by the parties, applies to the plaintiff’s claim that Verizon’s debt collection methods were unlawful. I conclude that the arbitration agreement is narrow in scope and does not encompass the plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate. For these reasons, Verizon’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration [Docket 8] is DENIED. Verizon’s motions to suspend deadlines [Docket 19] and for a protective order to stay discovery [Docket 28] are DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
3:12-cv-00785

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On December 3-4, 2013, the Court held a trial in this case regarding jurisdiction and liability,1 and the parties timely conducted post-trial briefing. As explained below, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs have established statutory jurisdiction under both the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The Court further FINDS that Plaintiffs have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each Defendant has committed at least one violation of its permits by discharging into Laurel Creek or Robinson Fork high levels of ionic pollution, which have caused or materially contributed to a significant adverse impact to the chemical and biological components of the applicable stream‘s aquatic ecosystem, in violation of the narrative water quality standards that are incorporated into those permits. 

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:12-cv-01353

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Quicken Loans, Inc.’s (“Quicken”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 216]. This suit arises out of Quicken’s alleged failure to provide the plaintiff, Alisha Kingery, a credit score disclosure “as soon as reasonably practicable,” in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(g) (2008).

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Pages