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.

Logan & Kanawha Coal Co., LLC v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC 06/10/2011
2:11-cv-00342

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the motion by the plaintiff, Logan & Kanawha Coal Co., LLC (“L&K”) to Order Service by the U.S. Marshals Service [Docket 5].  For the reasons outlined below, this motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent it requests that this court direct the United States Marshals Service to serve upon the defendant the plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and other supporting documentation.  The plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to complete Form USM285, and take all necessary steps, including prepayment of the estimated fees and expenses for service, to facilitate service of the defendant by the U.S. Marshals Service, and deliver the same to the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Steven M. Giles and Mayer Friedman v. ICG, Inc., et al. 05/31/2011
3:11-cv-00330

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This is a shareholder challenge to a two-step acquisition in which a third-party corporation has agreed to commence a tender offer for a majority of the target corporation’s stock, followed by a back-end merger into a subsidiary of the acquirer.  Pending are various motions filed by the parties.  For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the defendants’ Motion to Proceed in One Jurisdiction, Dismiss or Stay Litigation in the Other Jurisdiction, and Organize Counsel for the Putative Class.  [Doc. 5]

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
William David Richards v. Appalachian Power Company, et al. 05/26/2011
2:11-cv-00144

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this action to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia [Docket 5].  For the following reasons, the court FINDS that the plaintiff’s claims are not completely preempted and GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Coal-Mac, Inc., and Mingo Logan Coal Company 03/31/2011
3:10-cv-00833, 3:10-cv-00836

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are multiple motions and cross-motions for summary judgment in OVEC v. Coal-Mac, 3:10-0833, and OVEC v. Independence, 3:10-836.  In Coal-Mac, pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and to Schedule a Hearing on the Scope of Injunctive Relief (Doc. 5); Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Resolution of Negotiations Between Arch Coal, Inc. and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Doc. 13); Coal-Mac’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 18); Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (Doc. 26); and Coal-Mac, Inc. and Mingo Logan Coal Company’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 37).  In Independence, pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (Doc. 14) and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 24).  Also pending are Plaintiffs’ Motions to File Surreply to Defendants’ Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendants’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment in Coal-Mac (Doc. 76) and Independence (Doc. 57).  Both these latter motions are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ memorandums were considered in the disposition of these motions.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Marion V. Smith v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al. 03/11/2011
2:10-cv-00354

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) [Docket 22].  BAC’s position rests primarily on preemption, an important constitutional doctrine that draws its force from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Preemption reflects the principle that, in the collective wisdom of Congress, the laws of the several States must sometimes give way to a set of nationally uniform rules and regulations. Nevertheless, because part of the genius of our constitutional Republic stems from its preservation of dual sovereigns, federal preemption of state law is not something to be undertaken lightly.  BAC’s briefing accords these principles little weight.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
U.S. Foodservice, Inc. v. Timothy Donahue, et al. 02/18/2011
3:10-cv-00183

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are a Motion to Vacate Any and All Default and Other Judgments [Docket 42], filed by the defendant Timothy Donahue, and a Motion to Vacate Any and All Default and Other Judgments [Docket 45], filed by the defendant Barbara Donahue.  For the reasons provided below, both motions are DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Roger Wolfe v. Paul A. Green, et al. 02/03/2011
2:08-cv-01023

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is plaintiff Roger Wolfe’s motion for award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, filed December 18, 2009. Plaintiff seeks a total of $299,560.17 in attorneys’ fees, $37,355.19 in costs, and $52,059.42 in expert witness expenses.1

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Tia Young v. Michael J. Astrue 01/25/2011
3:09-cv-01062

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying Claimant’s applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”), under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 13811383f. (Docket No. 1). Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge. (Docket Nos. 5 and 6). The case is presently pending before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings as articulated in their briefs. (Docket Nos. 11 and 15).

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
Cathy Delebreau, et al. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC 01/18/2011
6:09-cv-00245

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 65] and the plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class [Docket 68].  For the reasons discussed below, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part; the plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class is DENIED as moot.  The court ORDERS that judgment be entered for the defendant on Counts One, Two, and Three of the plaintiffs’ Complaint.  The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Four of the plaintiffs’ Complaint, and, accordingly, DISMISSES Count Four without prejudice.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Tim Collins 01/18/2011
3:10-cv-01099

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This is an action for declaratory relief brought by the plaintiff CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) against the defendant Tim Collins as the administrator and personal representative of the estate of Willie Collins, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.  CSX seeks a declaration that the defendant must indemnify it for any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of his decision to file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of the decedent.  Further, CSX seeks a declaration that the State court lawsuit is precluded by a release clause signed by the decedent. Currently pending is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 3] For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages