Joseph Robert Goodwin

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerns Class Counsel's motion for attorney fees, incentive awards, and expense reimbursement following approval of a class action settlement creating a common fund of $28-33 million for participating subclass members in a dispute with Equitable Production Co. The court reduced the requested fee award from 25% of the settlement fund to 20%, while approving $96,113.54 in expenses and $25,000 incentive awards for each class representative. The decision applied the percentage-of-fund method for calculating fees in common fund class actions, weighing factors including the substantial benefit achieved for the class, the high rate of direct notice to class members with few objections, the risk and complexity of the litigation, and concerns that a higher percentage would result in a windfall unrelated to counsel's effort.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Dean Smith sued mortgage broker BMS and other defendants in West Virginia state court over a 2007 home loan he alleged was predatory, claiming violations of the Truth in Lending Act and state-law claims including fraud and unconscionable conduct related to the loan secured by his residence and adjoining lots. After the case was removed to the Southern District of West Virginia, BMS—which was served after removal—moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of West Virginia. The court denied the motion, ruling that the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), governs venue in this situation and places it in the Southern District, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was not justified because the defendants failed to show the Northern District would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses.

procedure

This products liability case arose after Salli Rae Leonard, a Michigan resident, died from an acute fentanyl overdose while using a prescribed transdermal patch manufactured by the defendants. Her husband filed suit in West Virginia state court asserting strict products liability, breach of warranty, and consumer-protection claims, after which the defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to transfer venue. The court granted the motion to transfer to the Western District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Although the defendants framed the request as a convenience transfer, the court found venue improper in West Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred entirely in Michigan. The court concluded that private-interest factors, including the location of witnesses, evidence, and medical records, as well as Michigan’s stronger public interest in the litigation, overwhelmingly favored transfer.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute between Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital and its insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, over whether the hospital's professional liability policy covers portions of a large jury verdict and related claims arising from the Boggs wrongful death and tort litigation. The underlying suits alleged medical negligence in a patient's death plus intentional misconduct such as fraudulent concealment of records, evidence spoliation, and outrageous conduct, resulting in awards for compensatory damages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. The court granted the insurer's cross-motion for summary judgment in part and denied the hospital's motions, holding that damages tied to intentional acts are not covered because the policy excludes coverage for intentional conduct and requires the hospital to satisfy its self-insured retention before any excess coverage applies. Claims related to one pending state-court action were dismissed without prejudice as premature. The rulings rest on the policy language distinguishing covered negligence from uncovered intentional torts and on the undisputed facts of the verdict forms and procedural history.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by Andrew Lee Adkins against Officer Arthur Jarrett and the Town of Danville arising from an August 2008 incident in which the inexperienced, uncertified officer responded to a backup call outside his jurisdiction, mistook the 14-year-old cross-country runner for an armed suspect, ordered him to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffed him tightly, and briefly detained him before realizing the error. Adkins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force and under state law for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, also asserting municipal liability and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims against the town. The court granted Jarrett summary judgment in part but denied it as to the constitutional and state tort claims, finding genuine disputes over whether his actions were objectively reasonable and whether he exceeded the scope of his duties; it denied the town's motion entirely because material factual issues existed regarding inadequate training, supervision, and hiring practices that could have proximately caused the alleged injuries.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources challenging the federal government's withholding of Medicaid funding after the state recovered money through a settlement with a pharmaceutical company accused of inflating drug prices reimbursed by the Medicaid program. The state had sued Dey, LP for causing overpayments and received an $850,000 settlement, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that the federal government was entitled to its matching share under the Medicaid statute's overpayment recovery rules. The court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and denied the state's motion, holding that the overpayment provisions applied to the settlement funds. The core reasoning was that states must refund the federal share of Medicaid overpayments recovered from any source, as the statute requires adjustment of federal financial participation whether or not the settling party was a direct provider.

healthcarefederal power

This case involves Billy Jean Naylor, Jr.'s challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, claiming disability from birth due to mental conditions. The plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), arguing errors in the ALJ's findings regarding severe impairments and residual functional capacity. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Commissioner's, thereby affirming the denial of benefits. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including proper evaluation of impairments at each step of the sequential process and claimant's ability to perform work.

federal powerhealthcare

In this case, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., as subrogee of City Holding, sued multiple defendants including South Charleston Electric Co. for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability after a 2007 fire at City Holding's headquarters caused over $300,000 in damages; St. Paul had paid City Holding's insurance claim and sought recovery. South Charleston moved for summary judgment, arguing that West Virginia's statute of repose (W. Va. Code § 55-2-6a) barred the claims because it had sold and installed the UPS system components in 1997, more than ten years earlier. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute did not apply because South Charleston's actions did not constitute the planning, design, or actual construction of an improvement to real property, as the common meaning of "construction" involves creating new structures rather than adding equipment like a backup power system to an existing building.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which USF Insurance Company filed a federal action seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds, Stowers Trucking, Odell Processing, and Laurel Creek, in a pending state court tort lawsuit arising from a workplace injury to an alleged employee. Stowers moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal court should decline jurisdiction in light of the parallel state proceedings. The court denied the motion after applying the Nautilus factors, concluding that the federal action would clarify the parties' legal relations without causing undue entanglement with the state case, that USF had not engaged in procedural fencing, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act permitted the exercise of jurisdiction. The decision rested on the absence of significant factual overlap that would interfere with state proceedings and the timing of the filings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a challenge by Tammy W. on behalf of her minor daughter T.W. and a proposed class to the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources' administration of the Children with Disabilities Community Services Program (CDCSP), a Medicaid-funded program allowing disabled children to receive care at home rather than in institutions. The plaintiff alleged that the state applied an eligibility standard stricter than permitted under federal Medicaid law by requiring a showing of need for skilled nursing facility care, and that termination notices were inadequate, violating due process and federal requirements. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that the claims were not ripe for judicial review because T.W.'s benefits had not been terminated, an administrative fair hearing was pending, she continued receiving benefits in the interim, and the agency action was not final. The court reasoned that review would be premature under the Abbott Laboratories ripeness test, as the issues depended on contingent future events, delayed review would not cause hardship, and federal intervention would improperly interfere with state administration of Medicaid under principles of federalism and comity.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Telford Cruikshank, Jr., who was charged with possessing or knowingly accessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). After pleading guilty, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months' imprisonment based on a total offense level of 23 and criminal history category I, incorporating enhancements for images of prepubescent minors, computer use, and image quantity. The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 24 months in prison plus 15 years of supervised release after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the circumstances of the offense (viewing without distribution or saving), the defendant's history and characteristics (no prior record, family ties, employment), and the need to avoid a sentence greater than necessary for punishment, deterrence, and public protection.

criminal law

The case involved homeowners who obtained and refinanced a mortgage loan, entered a forbearance agreement, faced foreclosure, and filed for bankruptcy, later suing the lenders and broker for various state law claims including unconscionable contracts, improper fees, and violations of consumer protection laws related to the loan terms and foreclosure. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss most of the claims. The core reasoning was that the claims were barred by res judicata because they related to debts that should have been addressed during the bankruptcy proceedings, where the confirmation order constituted a final judgment and the plaintiffs did not object or assert these issues. One claim against the mortgage broker for illegal settlement fees survived as it was unrelated to the bankruptcy debts.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Jennifer Workman's challenge to the denial of a medical exemption from West Virginia's mandatory school immunization requirements for her child M.W., sought due to health issues in a sibling; she had obtained a certificate from a psychiatrist, but state health officials rejected it as inconsistent with medical guidelines from bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which do not recognize family autism or speech delays as contraindications. West Virginia, one of only two states without a religious exemption, enforced the requirements through the Mingo County school system, leading Workman to sue the board of education and officials on grounds including constitutional rights to exemptions. The court denied Workman's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions, upholding the denial of the exemption and the validity of the compulsory vaccination program. The reasoning centered on the lack of medical basis for the exemption under current standards and the state's authority to enforce immunization rules for school attendance without providing religious or philosophical opt-outs.

healthcarereligious libertycivil rightsfamily law

The case involves parents suing their health insurer for denying coverage of air ambulance transport costs for their premature newborn, who had respiratory distress and was transferred to a specialized pediatric facility. The insurer based its denial on plan language excluding coverage when transport is for family preference rather than medical necessity, citing notes in the transport record that the parents requested the transfer. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied both motions and remanded the claim to the plan administrator. The core reasoning was that the administrator had not adequately developed the administrative record or fully considered the medical evidence submitted on appeal, such as the letter from the transport provider's medical director explaining the clinical need for rapid specialized transport.

healthcareprocedure