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.

3:99-cv-00274

Order

Pending before the Court is the January 2, 2001 motion of Defendant C. L. Smith Container Company (C. L. Smith) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Because exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court over Defendant C. L. Smith would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as more thoroughly discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
2:00-cv-00896

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiffs renewed motion to remand and the updated motion for summary judgment filed by BAS Technical Employment Placement Company (BAS). The Court DENIES the renewed motion to remand and DENIES as moot the updated motion for summary judgment.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-00077

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are motions ( 1) by Plaintiff Sayer Brothers, Inc. (Sayer Brothers) for partial summary judgment on Count 1 (Sayer Brothers' thirty-five million dollar claim for breach of contract) and on Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company's (St. Paul) counterclaim for declaratory judgment on the same issue; (2) by St. Paul for summary judgment denying Sayer Brothers' claim and finding St. Paul not liable for bad faith on its determination not to pay thirty-five million dollars to Sayer Brothers on the claim; (3) by Sayer Brothers for partial summary judgment as to liability alone on Counts 2 and 3 (breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair claims settlement practices); (4) by Third-Party (interpleader) Defendant Ames Department Stores, Inc. (Ames) for partial summary judgment (a) on its claims for compensation from St. Paul and (b) on request for release from its lease with Sayer Brothers on grounds of impossibility; and (5) by Sayer Brothers to dismiss Count II of Ames' Supplemental and Amended Cross-Claims.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:99-cv-00490

Proposed Findings and Recommendations

By Amended Standing Order entered October 6, 2000, the District Court referred this civil action to this Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendation for disposition (document # 74). Now pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Wolfe (# 77). The motion is supported by a memorandum with exhibits (“Def. Mem.,” # 78). Plaintiff, by counsel, filed a response in opposition (“Pl. Resp.,” # 80) with exhibits, and Defendant filed a Reply (# 81) with exhibits.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:01-cv-00054

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendants’ motion to dismiss.1  Both motions are DENIED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-00841

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the motion of Plaintiff West Virginia Housing Development Fund (the Fund) to modify the Scheduling Order and Amend its Complaint.  The motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-00192

Memorandum Opinion and Remand Order

Pending are Plaintiffs’ renewed motions for abstention and remand and Defendants’ motion to transfer venue.1 For reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motions for abstention and remand are GRANTED and Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-01062

Corrective Order

The Court AMENDS its Memorandum Opinion and Order filed May 29, 2001.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
2:00-cv-01062

Memorandum Opinion andPreliminary Injunction Hearing Order

Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Count 4 of the Complaint. For reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES this action against the Defendant Director (now Secretary) of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s motion for the injunction, and it is DENIED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
5:00-cv-01172

Order

Pending before the Court is Defendant Monroe Scarbro's February 1, 2001 supplemented motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages