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
Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction Against the Callisto Surface Mine (Doc. 358). A hearing on this motion was held by the Court on September 26, 2007. Additionally, parties have submitted memoranda explaining their positions. Having considered all of this, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this Court are numerous motions by the parties, revolving around the question of arbitrability, including, 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16), 2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Preliminary Injunction Hearing with Trial on the Merits (Doc. 18), 3) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the Parties to Engage in Immediate Discovery on the Issue of Arbitrability (Doc. 20), 4) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 24), and finally 5) Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 29). For the reasons explained more fully below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and DENIES the parties’ other motions as moot.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Docket 2]. The issue presented is whether the ban on limited video lottery advertising imposed by the Limited Video Lottery Act violates the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. As a doctrinal matter, the advertising ban does not directly and materially advance a substantial government interest, and is therefore an impermissible restriction on commercial speech under the First Amendment. The advertising ban infringes upon the limited video lottery retailers’ right to speak and impedes the public’s ability to engage in informed political discourse. For these and the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Limiting Defendants’ Discussions with Putative Class Members [Docket 92] and the defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Request for Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing [Docket 100]. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 13, 2006 in the Circuit Court of Roane County alleging that the defendants breached contractual and fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs, knowingly and intentionally deprived the plaintiffs of rents and royalties to which they are entitled, and violated W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101 [Docket 3]. The defendants timely filed their notice of removal on August 7, 2006 [Docket 3]. For the following reasons the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On August 6, 2007, this Court began a bench trial at which the defendant asked to be found not guilty on the basis that the offense charged, as applied to the facts of his case, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The Court then recessed the trial to consider the parties’ arguments on this issue. Upon review of those arguments, the Court FINDS the defendant not guilty of the charge contained in the superceding indictment as such a conviction would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this court are plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 7) and defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4). Having reviewed the record and applicable law, for the reasons outlined below, the court (1) GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 7), (2) REMANDS this case to the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, (3) DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Remand Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this action from the court’s active docket. Because the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, the court does not reach defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Memorandum Opinion
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Reduce Defendant’s Sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 [Docket 33]. A hearing was held on the motion on April 2, 2007. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Stephen F. Parsons, filed May 22, 2007. (Docket # 97.) Plaintiff responded on June 8, 2007 (# 100), and Defendants replied on June 21, 2007 (# 102). The court heard oral argument on July 9, 2007, making the matter ripe for decision.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Supplemental Complaint [Doc. #250] and Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Supplemental Complaint [Doc. #291]. The Court finds that allowing Plaintiffs to supplement their Complaint will not prejudice existing parties or parties not present to this suit. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file a Fourth Supplemental Complaint and Fifth Supplemental Complaint.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment [Docket 25]. For the following reasons the motion is GRANTED.