Charles Harold Haden 2

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a former Sears automotive technician with cerebral palsy who sued the company under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, alleging his termination was due to disability discrimination. The court granted Sears' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to show his condition substantially limited any major life activity or that Sears regarded him as disabled, as the effects were minimal and did not impact his ability to work, communicate, or perform daily tasks. The court further held that Sears offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination—violating policy by working on a personal vehicle after being instructed not to—and the plaintiff provided no evidence of pretext.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a pro se prisoner lawsuit by David Skundor against prison officials including Thomas McBride and Robert Daniel, challenging the constitutionality of routine visual body cavity searches conducted on inmates before or after recreation. Skundor alleged these searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and he raised objections to the magistrate judge's findings on the searches' reasonableness, visibility, and necessity. The court adopted the magistrate's proposed findings on most motions, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity analysis, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The reasoning centered on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact showing a constitutional violation, the application of the Bell v. Wolfish test for prison searches rather than Turner factors, and the deference owed to prison administrators' security judgments under Supreme Court precedent like Whitley v. Albers.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Cerra v. Harvey, plaintiff James Cerra, who served as administrator of the West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund from 1980 to 2000 after previously acting as a trustee, sued the fund trustees under ERISA after they suspended his approved monthly pension benefits in 2001 on grounds that he did not qualify as an eligible employee due to his reported work hours and other factors. The defendants counterclaimed for repayment of benefits already paid. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to Cerra on his benefits claim, denied the counterclaim, and remanded only for recalculation of the benefit amount based on actual employer contributions, while finding the trustees' eligibility determination unsupported under the plan definitions and ERISA standards of review.

labor & employment

In Baisden v. Bayer Corp., a West Virginia plaintiff sued Bayer Corporation, an out-of-state drug manufacturer, and her West Virginia physician for injuries from the drug Baycol, asserting product liability, negligence, fraud, and other claims against Bayer and medical malpractice against the doctor. Bayer removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, contending the doctor was fraudulently joined. The court denied the motion to remand after concluding that the allegations against Bayer—that it deliberately concealed the drug's risks—directly contradicted the malpractice claims that the doctor knew or should have known of those risks, rendering recovery against the in-state defendant impossible. The doctor was therefore dismissed as fraudulently joined, establishing complete diversity and federal jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Darla George Ingles sued State Farm after a 1999 car accident in which she suffered significant injuries and medical expenses. She had already collected the at-fault driver's liability limits and the $20,000 underinsured motorist coverage from her own State Farm policy, but she sought additional stacked benefits under higher-limit policies issued to her parents. The court had previously ruled against her on the issues of a commercially reasonable offer and stacking, leaving only the question of whether she could access the higher coverage limits from her parents' policies. Applying the plain language of the policies, the court held that an exclusion for bodily injury to an insured occupying a vehicle owned by the insured and covered under another State Farm policy barred recovery of the parents' higher limits. It therefore denied her renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

business & regulatory

In this case, truck driver Thomas Toney and his wife sued Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and related entities for negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium after he was injured in New York by falling cartons while unloading a trailer that had been loaded at a Virginia distribution center. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the proper corporate defendant had insufficient contacts with West Virginia, and alternatively sought transfer to the Western District of Virginia. The court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction under West Virginia's long-arm statutes and due process because the interrelated Family Dollar entities collectively had substantial operations and subsidiaries in the state. The court also held that the balance of convenience factors, including the plaintiffs' choice of forum and availability of evidence, did not warrant transfer.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff H. John Rogers, after receiving a speeding citation in municipal court and unsuccessfully challenging his conviction and related procedures through state court appeals and a writ petition, filed a federal lawsuit against the municipal judge, the city, and a state DMV official. He alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process and equal protection arising from the municipal court proceedings, his denied requests for continuance or paralegal representation, and the suspension of his driver's license. The district court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the municipal judge and city. It held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the federal claims because they were inextricably intertwined with the state court rulings on the conviction and appeal timeliness, effectively seeking federal review of those state decisions. The action was permitted to proceed only against the DMV commissioner.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether plaintiff Darla George Ingles could stack underinsured motorist coverage limits from her own State Farm policy with those from two policies issued to her parents after she was injured in a 1999 car accident caused by an underinsured driver. Plaintiff had already collected the at-fault driver's $100,000 liability limits and $20,000 from her own policy, but sought additional recovery by combining coverages across the household policies, which contained anti-stacking language and reflected multiple-vehicle discounts. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment in part and denied plaintiff's motion, finding that State Farm had complied with West Virginia insurance statutes in offering coverage and implementing discounts and endorsements, while ordering further briefing on remaining policy interpretation issues. The decision rested on the policy terms, statutory requirements for anti-stacking provisions tied to discounts, and the absence of disputed facts warranting full stacking.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a divorced mother residing in England who petitioned a federal district court under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing statute, ICARA, to enforce summer visitation access rights with her son living with the father in West Virginia and to require the father to cover passport and travel costs. The father had already arranged tickets but disputed the passport expense. The court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the Convention grants federal courts authority only to remedy wrongful removals breaching custody rights under Article 12, while Article 21 access rights lack an enforceable judicial remedy in federal court and are instead directed to Central Authorities or state courts.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a federal prisoner's motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence and under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to modify it, following convictions for conspiracy against civil rights, violating the Fair Housing Act, using fire during a felony, and arson by burning a mobile home occupied by an interracial couple in a racially motivated attack. The court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations and denied both motions. It held that counsel was not ineffective for agreeing to apply the 1989 Sentencing Guidelines, as doing so avoided the risk of a longer sentence under a later edition and reflected sound strategy under Strickland v. Washington, with no need to reach the prejudice prong.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a wrongful death claim arising from a 1999 car accident that killed the plaintiff's son, after which the estate received liability limits from the at-fault driver and $300,000 in underinsured motorist benefits from Westfield Insurance; the dispute centered on Westfield's subrogation rights against a bar that had served alcohol to the driver and on alleged delays and misconduct in handling the claims. The plaintiff sued Westfield and its adjuster under the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act and Hayseeds for bad-faith acts including delaying a subrogation waiver, improperly seeking subrogation against a non-motorist, and other misrepresentations. The district court granted Westfield's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both counts. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating genuine issues of material fact on any alleged unreasonable delay or improper conduct, that the subrogation requests and information demands were reasonable under the policy and statute once benefits were paid, and that the made-whole-rule concerns were addressed when Westfield promptly waived subrogation after receiving the requested economic data.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerned Kellogg, Brown & Root's effort to enforce an employment agreement's dispute resolution program against former employee Teddy Bragg, who had filed an age discrimination lawsuit in West Virginia state court after his layoff. The court denied Bragg's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and granted KB&R's petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act while staying the state action. Jurisdiction existed because the underlying claim sought damages well exceeding $75,000 when viewed from either party's perspective, and the arbitration agreement was valid and applicable as it mandated binding arbitration for employment disputes after allowing initial administrative filings. The DRP provided for neutral arbitrators, limited employee fees, and cross-examination of witnesses.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a federal prisoner serving a District of Columbia sentence who filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the U.S. Parole Commission's use of its own guidelines at his initial parole hearing rather than the District of Columbia Board of Parole rules in effect at the time of his offense, claiming an ex post facto violation; he also alleged improper consideration of prison misconduct of which he had been exonerated. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's proposed findings and denied the petition in full, dismissing the action. The core reasoning was that parole guidelines do not qualify as laws for ex post facto purposes, the 1997 Revitalization Act did not change the petitioner's parole eligibility in a manner that disadvantaged him, and the record did not support claims of material harm or reliance on exonerated conduct.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved claims by the Knapps against Americredit Financial Services, Crown-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, and Henry Marino arising from an auto purchase and financing transaction. Plaintiffs alleged that an acquisition fee was hidden in the vehicle price through false downpayments and falsified documents, violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to properly disclose it as a finance charge and provide timely disclosures, along with related state claims for excessive charges, joint venture, conspiracy, unfair practices, and fraud. On summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part on certain TILA counts concerning the amount financed and against specific defendants but denied them in part on the conspicuousness of disclosures and on the state law counts, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the fee was a hidden finance charge and the nature of the parties' practices.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability