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 is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, filed May 3, 2005. Pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), the court ordered the trial of this action advanced and consolidated with the hearing on plaintiff’s motion. The parties consented to this action both prior to, and during, the bench trial conducted on May 9, 2005.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending is the motion of the plaintiff to determine an award of fees to Edison Hill and the law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler. The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefings and heard oral argument in this matter on May 23 and 24, 2005. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion and AWARDS as reasonable attorney fees to Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler an amount equal to ten percent of the settlement and expenses as set forth herein.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On February 16, 2005, Massachusetts Mutual (“Mass Mutual”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking Plaintiff’s answers to certain of its interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (Docket # 34.) Mass Mutual had served Plaintiff, LaDonna Saria (“Saria”), with 28 interrogatories, many of which contained subparts. The number of interrogatories, including these subparts, exceeded the limit (50) which the parties had agreed upon. Saria initially lodged a numerousity objection to all interrogatories, and did not answer any of them. She later agreed to answer those interrogatories “to which [she] had no objection”, and apparently selected those to which she responded. However, certain of Saria’s answers were simple references to other pleadings rather than responses crafted to answer the interrogatory. Saria raised relevancy and undue hardship objections to various interrogatories and requests as well. Saria’s responses were neither verified nor signed.
Memorandum Opinion
The defendant in this case was sentenced on April 21, 2005, to a term of imprisonment of ten years to be followed by an eight-year term of supervised release. The reasons for this sentence are fully set forth herein.
Order
Pending before the court are the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, filed July 3, 2002, and plaintiff Teresa Icenhour's motion for partial summary judgment filed July 17, 2002.
Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Attorney Fees
Plaintiff Hominy Creek Preservation Association, Inc. (HCPA) petitions the Court for an award of attorney fees and litigation costs against Green Valley Coal Company (Green Valley), an intervenor subsequently made a defendant in this action. This lawsuit was brought under the citizen suit provisions in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). HCPA contends that the applicable standard found in 30 U.S.C. § 1270(d)1 entitles it to an award despite the fact that its lawsuit, insofar as against Green Valley, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily by HCPA prior to an adjudication on the merits. HCPA argues that certain remedial environmental action was undertaken by Green Valley in response to the lawsuit or in response to the regulatory actions which HCPA prompted. For the reasons cited below, the Court GRANTS IN PART HCPA’s Petition.
Order
Since 1987, district court judges have determined criminal sentences pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA), Pub. L. 98-473, Title II, §§ 211-238, 98 Stat. 1987 (1984) and the Guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (Jan. 12, 2005), significantly alters the sentencing scheme that has existed since 1987. In accordance with the Booker decision, I conducted the sentencing hearing in the instant case as follows.
Order
Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 33], the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 39], and the defendant’s motion to exceed page limitations [Docket 40]. For cause shown, the defendant’s motion to exceed page limitations [Docket 40] is GRANTED. For the following reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket 33] is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a ruling estopping Verizon from changing Mr. Eastes’ official retirement date. The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment [Docket 39] is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the plan administrator for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss.1 For the reasons that follow herein the Court DENIES the motions.
Opinion on Motion to Remand
This civil action was filed originally in the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, on February 6, 2004. The plaintiffs are PinnOak Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in West Virginia. The two plaintiffs are closely related business entities and are referred to collectively hereinafter as "PinnOak." PinnOak owns and operates an underground bituminous coal mine in Wyoming County known as the Pinnacle Mine.