This multidistrict products liability litigation arose from a 2008 recall of Digitek tablets after a manufacturing plant discovered a small number of double-thick pills during quality control checks. Plaintiffs in two remaining individual actions alleged that defective tablets reached the market and caused the deaths of the decedents, who had been prescribed the drug for heart conditions. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and related evidentiary motions, declining to reach the broader MDL summary judgment requests. It reasoned that the plaintiffs produced no evidence that any decedent or their caregivers ever encountered a defective tablet, that their untested pills were normal, and that causation theories relied on speculation rather than proof linking any defect to the deaths amid the decedents' other medical issues and drug interactions.
In Caufield v. EMC Mortgage Corp., the plaintiff sued the mortgage servicer in West Virginia state court, alleging breach of a loan modification agreement and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act through illegal fees and debt collection practices, both individually and on behalf of a proposed class of borrowers. The defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, claiming the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million based on statutory penalties, injunctive relief, and other damages multiplied across loans serviced in the state. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the defendant failed to provide a factual basis showing the proposed class size or amount in controversy requirements were met, relying instead on unsupported assumptions and speculation. The court also awarded attorneys' fees for the improper removal.
This case involves plaintiff Logan & Kanawha Coal Co.'s motion to confirm an arbitration award against defendant Detherage Coal Sales, LLC under the Federal Arbitration Act, along with a request for court-ordered service of the motion and supporting documents. The defendant is a nonresident of the district where the award was made. The court granted the motion directing the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service, requiring the plaintiff to complete the necessary forms and prepay fees. The core reasoning was that 9 U.S.C. § 9 explicitly mandates marshal service for nonresident adverse parties in such proceedings, and the court was bound by the statute's plain language despite changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 that generally limit marshal service in civil cases.
This case involved a West Virginia homeowner who sued her mortgage loan servicer, BAC Home Loans Servicing, after defaulting on her loan, entering a loan modification agreement, and then facing foreclosure proceedings despite making payments under the modification. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract plus violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act for failing to provide required notices and using deceptive or unconscionable debt collection practices. BAC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the two state statutory claims were preempted by the National Bank Act and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulations. The court denied the motion, holding that federal preemption of state law is not to be lightly presumed, that BAC's arguments relied on agency regulations and policy rather than statutory text or clear congressional intent, and that recent Supreme Court precedent did not support preemption of the claims as applied in this case.
business & regulatoryfederal powerpropertyprocedure
In this case, U.S. Foodservice sued Timothy and Barbara Donahue to recover unpaid amounts for food product deliveries to a restaurant, asserting breach of personal guaranty and unjust enrichment claims based on signed guaranty agreements. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered default judgments against them following proper service by personal delivery and publication. The defendants later moved to vacate the defaults under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), with Timothy arguing improper service and Barbara citing her attorney's inaction. The court denied both motions, finding that service was valid, the defendants lacked a meritorious defense, failed to act diligently in seeking relief, and did not demonstrate excusable neglect or other grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
This case involved West Virginia homeowners suing their loan servicer, Bayview Loan Servicing, for allegedly assessing illegal late fees, attorney fees, and other default charges, misapplying payments, and threatening foreclosure in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, along with a state-law breach of contract claim. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the three WVCCPA counts, finding them barred by the four-year statute of limitations because the plaintiffs were aware of the fees and the loan acceleration more than four years before filing suit. It denied the motion to certify a class as moot and dismissed the remaining contract claim without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The decision rested on the timing of when the claims accrued relative to the plaintiffs' knowledge of the challenged conduct during the servicing period from 2004 onward.