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.

Charles Kelly v. City of Parkersburg, et al. 10/16/2013
6:13-cv-23260

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Docket 5]. On October 2, 2013, I entered a Temporary Restraining Order [Docket 13] prohibiting the defendants from enforcing Parkersburg Codified Ordinance 347.28. I held a hearing on October 9, 2013, to determine whether to enter a preliminary injunction. For the reasons described below, the plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Parkersburg Codified Ordinance 347.28 pending a trial on the merits.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
William Price v. Trooper Marsh, et al. 09/25/2013
2:12-cv-05442

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket 34]. A response was filed [Docket 38], and the motion is ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket 34] is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Marfork Coal Company, et al. 08/22/2013
5:12-cv-01464

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are cross-motions for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc., Coal River Mountain Watch, and Sierra Club (“Plaintiffs”), ECF No. 55, and Defendant Marfork Coal Co., Inc. (“Marfork”), ECF No. 50.  For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS in part Marfork’s motion as to the lack of standing of three of the plaintiffs, but otherwise DENIES the parties’ motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Marcus Wyn Taylor 08/12/2013
2:12-cr-00216

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are defendant Marcus Wyn Taylor's motion to suppress evidence, filed December 13, 2012, supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed December 27, 2012, and second supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed January 14, 2013.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
In Re: American Medical Systems, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Product Liability Litigation 05/22/2013
2:12-md-02325

Pretrial Order #64
(AMS's Motion for Permission to Meet with Dr. Moore)

Defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. (“AMS”) moves this court for an order permitting AMS to meet ex parte with Dr. Robert Moore prior to his deposition scheduled on May 29, 2013, (ECF No. 643, 657), and seeks an expedited ruling on its motion. (ECF No. 645). Plaintiffs have responded to the motion, and AMS has filed supporting and reply memoranda. (ECF Nos. 644, 658, 664, 668). Consequently, the issue before the court has been fully briefed and is ready for resolution. For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS AMS’s request for an expedited resolution of the motion and further GRANTS AMS’s motion and amended motion for permission to meet with Dr. Moore.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
United States of America v. Marcus Wyn Taylor 05/14/2013
2:12-cr-00216

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are defendant Marcus Wyn Taylor's motion to suppress evidence, filed December 13, 2012, supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed December 27, 2012, and second supplemental motion to suppress evidence, filed January 14, 2013.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General v. Pfizer, Inc., et al. 05/13/2013
3:13-cv-02546

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Mason County, ECF No. 10, and Defendants’ motion to stay pending transfer to federal multidistrict litigation, ECF No. 21.  For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Elk Run Coal Company, Inc., et al. 04/11/2013
3:12-cv-00785

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The Court has been asked to consider three motions filed by Defendants, all of which involve the confidentiality of benthic macroinvertebrate surveys performed by or at the request of Defendants for their internal use. (ECF Nos. 31, 33, 34). Plaintiffs responded to the motions, and Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 39, 40). On March 26, 2013, the undersigned heard argument from the parties and took the matter under advisement. Having now fully considered the positions of the parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 33) and further DENIES Defendants’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 31, 34).

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
Employer Teamsters-Local Nos. 175/505 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Company, et al. 01/29/2013
3:12-cv-00587

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 50) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The parties presented oral argument regarding the motion to dismiss on January 16, 2013, in Huntington. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 50). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum (ECF No. 70). For reasons appearing to the Court, the Court GRANTS this motion (ECF No. 70).1

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Sadie White, et al. v. Ally Financial Inc., et al. 01/15/2013
2:12-cv-00384

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are defendant West Asset Management’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Docket 24] and Motion to Stay [Docket 26]. These motions have been fully briefed by both parties and the matters are ripe for review. As discussed below, this court HOLDS today that an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 that affords a named plaintiff in a putative class action complete relief and is made prior to a motion for class certification does not moot the putative class action, as long as the motion for class certification is ultimately timely filed. The United States Supreme Court has held that a named plaintiff has an interest in obtaining a final decision on class certification, separate and distinct from his or her interest in obtaining a final decision on the merits, and sufficient for a federal court to maintain jurisdiction over the case. If such an interest exists, then it must exist at the time the named plaintiff files his or her class action complaint.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages