In this case, plaintiff Brenda Campbell sued defendant Restaurants First/Neighborhood Restaurant, Inc. after suffering a slip-and-fall injury at a Wendy's restaurant in West Virginia, alleging knee strains, a torn meniscus, and other permanent damages that led to medical bills of about $18,875 and a pre-suit demand for $150,000. The defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, and Campbell moved to remand, relying on a post-removal affidavit capping her damages at $75,000. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the amount in controversy is determined at the time of removal and that the demand letter, combined with evidence of painful permanent injuries and potential pain-and-suffering damages, satisfied the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the evidence.
The case concerned a group of West Virginia plaintiffs who sued Western Southern Life Insurance Company and several individual West Virginia insurance agents over the purchase of insurance products; after removal to federal court, the plaintiffs moved to remand the action to state court. The court denied the remand motions and dismissed the claims against the individual defendants. It held that the plaintiffs' claims were procedurally misjoined under Rule 20 because they lacked a common transactional, factual, or legal basis, as each plaintiff was induced separately by different agents. The court further found the individual defendants were fraudulently joined because the plaintiffs had no contact with them and failed to plead fraud with particularity. These rulings created complete diversity between the remaining plaintiffs and the insurance company defendant, establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widow of a West Virginia truck driver killed when cargo fell from a trailer that had been negligently loaded with Volvo parts in Virginia. The plaintiff sued Volvo Trucks and Volvo Logistics in federal court in West Virginia under diversity jurisdiction. The court denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss Volvo Logistics for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process, finding a prima facie showing of minimum contacts sufficient under the state's long-arm statute and due process. It also denied the request to transfer the case to Virginia but granted transfer within the district to the Bluefield division, based on convenience to parties, witnesses, and sources of proof, including proximity to the accident site and the plaintiff's residence.
The case involved multiple defendants who were convicted or pled guilty to federal charges of drug conspiracy, distribution of cocaine base and marijuana, and money laundering, with sentences ranging up to life imprisonment. After the appeals court remanded the cases based on government disclosures of misconduct by the lead investigator, who had a personal relationship with a key cooperating witness and allegedly coached her perjured testimony while withholding exculpatory information, the district court considered post-remand motions for evidentiary hearings, resentencing, and other relief under Brady and Giglio. The court denied most motions, concluding that the investigator's misconduct warranted relief only for defendants directly impacted by the tainted testimony and that unrelated claims, such as those involving other witnesses, fell outside the remand order's scope. It further rejected arguments based on Apprendi as beyond the remand's purview while noting that one defendant's sentence did not implicate statutory maximum issues.
The case concerns claims brought by the estate of a minor student allegedly sexually assaulted and killed in 1997 by a teacher and principal employed by the Fayette County Board of Education, with the suit filed in 2003 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX against the board and supervising officials for deliberate indifference to known risks posed by the teacher. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions and that the complaint failed to state a claim by lacking an affirmative causal link or meeting the actual notice standard for supervisory liability. The court reviewed the motion under Rule 12(b)(6) standards, noting that Title IX liability requires actual knowledge by an official with authority to act rather than respondeat superior, that § 1983 borrows the state statute of limitations without extension via the savings statute for deceased minors, and that certain related constitutional claims by beneficiaries are not recognized in the circuit. The opinion addresses the timeliness of the filing and the sufficiency of allegations regarding the supervisors' inaction but does not recognize claims based on incidental effects on family relationships.
The case involved a petition to revoke the supervised release of defendant David Hamler, Jr., who had been convicted in 1996 of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and originally sentenced to 72 months imprisonment plus five years of supervised release based on a plea agreement attributing 18.75 grams of cocaine base to him. After the defendant admitted to violating release conditions including drug use and failing to report, the court revoked supervised release and imposed a new sentence of 15 months imprisonment followed by 45 months supervised release. The court reasoned that, despite the Supreme Court's intervening Apprendi decision requiring drug quantity to be charged and proven for enhanced penalties, the plea agreement and presentence report provided sufficient notice of the penalties, allowing treatment of the offense as a Class B felony for revocation sentencing purposes under Fourth Circuit precedents.