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
(Motion in Limine No.9)
Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Evidence or Argument That Boston Scientific Owed or Breached a Duty to Warn Plaintiffs Directly (“Motion in Limine No. 9”). (See BSC’s Initial Mots. in Limine [Docket 374], at ¶ 9). For the reasons set forth below, BSC’s Motion in Limine No. 9 is GRANTED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Punitive Damages Claims and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint)
Pending before the court are (1) Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims [Docket 263];1 and (2) plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [Docket 167]. For the reasons below, I FIND that West Virginia law, not Massachusetts law, applies to plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims and that there are genuine disputes of material fact over whether punitive damages are appropriate. Accordingly, I DENY BSC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claims. Because I conclude West Virginia punitive damages law applies here and Ms. Wilson concedes her motion is moot if this is so, I DENY plaintiff Chris Rene Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Pretrial Order #100
(Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions)
Currently pending in this nmltidistrict litigation is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 952). Plaintiffs claim that after a duty to preserve evidence had been triggered, defendant Ethicon, Inc. ("Ethicon") lost or destroyed tens of thousands of documents that likely contained information relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against Ethicon in three bellwether cases, the striking of defenses in other cases, an adverse instruction in all cases, and attorneys' fees and costs. Ethicon has responded in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiffs have replied. (ECF Nos. 1022, 1041). The undersigned heard oral argument from the parties on January 23, 2014. Therefore, the matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Motions for Summary Judgment on Substantive Claims and Punitive Damages)
Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 60], the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 62], and Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [Docket 64]. For the reasons stated below, Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 60] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 62] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [Docket 64] is DENIED.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.