Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Raymond Goedeke’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The matter initially was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, to make findings and recommendations.  The Magistrate Judge recommended I dismiss Mr. Goedeke’s petition because it was untimely.  After reviewing objections filed by the petitioner, I determined that additional factfinding was necessary.  On March 28, 2006, I held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mr. Goedeke’s petition was timely. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the post-hearing briefs, I FIND that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant equitably tolling of the applicable statute of limitations to allow Mr. Goedeke’s petition.

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement

Plaintiffs brought this action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).  Plaintiffs claim that Defendant ACF Industries LLC (ACF) violated the Act by changing one of the health insurance programs for its retirees.  Plaintiffs are members of the class of retirees, as certified by Order of this Court entered on March 25, 2005, covered by the Hospital and Physician Services Benefit Plan for Eligible Retired Employees and Dependents of ACF Industries, Inc. (H&P Plan).  Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting Plaintiffs cannot establish a right to unchangeable, lifetime benefits under the applicable contractual provisions.  At issue are the collective bargaining agreements (also referred to as CBAs and Master Agreements) and related documents under which the H&P Plan for retirees was created and maintained for the past thirty years.  Upon review of these documents, and for the following reasons, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are plaintiffs’ motions (1) to reassign this action, filed July 21, 2005, (2) for remand, (3) for oral argument on the remand motion, both filed July 29, 2005, and (4) for substitution of a party, filed November 1, 2005.

Judgment Order

For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered this day, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief be, and the same hereby is, granted.  It is declared that West Virginia Code § 24A-2-5 is invalid insofar as it requires solid waste haulers engaged in the interstate transportation of solid waste to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PSC prior to providing those services.  The PSC is therefore permanently enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs’ interstate transportation of solid waste from West Virginia to other states without having first obtained a certificate of convenience and necessity from the PSC. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: