The case involved three debtors who filed adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court against Capital One Bank, alleging that the bank violated West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act by continuing debt collection calls after being notified that the debtors had retained counsel and planned to file for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims as preempted by the National Bank Act under conflict preemption principles. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the state provision does not qualify as a preempted "State consumer financial law" under the Dodd-Frank Act because it addresses unfair collection practices rather than the terms of financial transactions or accounts, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Erie Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend its insureds—a daycare center and its owners—in a state-court lawsuit brought by former employees. The underlying complaint alleged claims including sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment, retaliatory discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy. The court compared the policy language to the complaint allegations and held that the Ultraflex Policy's employment-related practices exclusion applied to all claims because they arose out of the employment relationship. As a result, the court declared that Erie had no duty to defend and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Ryan Environmental sued Hess Oil and its insurers, the C&I defendants, in West Virginia state court seeking payment of roughly $253,000 for remediation work performed at a contaminated former gas station site. The C&I defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Hess Oil, a dissolved West Virginia corporation, was not a proper party whose citizenship or consent to removal mattered. The district court granted Ryan Environmental’s motion to remand, holding that complete diversity was lacking because Hess Oil remained a West Virginia citizen adverse to the plaintiff, that arguments for fraudulent joinder, misjoinder, or realignment failed, and that Hess Oil’s consent to removal had not been obtained. Because the case was returned to state court, the court denied the C&I defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as moot.
In Jones v. Price, a state inmate brought a § 1983 action alleging that a correctional officer violated his constitutional rights by conducting a visual strip search in a non-private area of the jail in view of a female office worker. The district court sustained the plaintiff's objections, rejected the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the defendant's second motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiff's continuance motion as moot. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning the location and manner of the search, including whether a private area was available nearby and the visibility to the female clerk. It held that the inmate's right to privacy of his genitals from unreasonable opposite-sex exposure was clearly established, and that disputes over the facts and witness credibility made qualified immunity unavailable at the summary judgment stage.
This case involves a Louisiana plaintiff suing Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of a generic anti-epileptic drug called Phenytoin, for severe injuries her special-needs son suffered after developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis from the medication. The plaintiff alleged inadequate warnings about heightened risks for African-American patients, while Mylan sought summary judgment arguing that Louisiana law and federal preemption barred the claims. The court held that the Louisiana Products Liability Act governs the claims and bars some of them, that the learned intermediary doctrine violates West Virginia public policy and thus does not apply, and that federal law does not preempt the remaining state-law failure-to-warn claims. It therefore granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The reasoning rested on choice-of-law analysis, West Virginia precedent rejecting the learned intermediary doctrine, and Supreme Court authority such as Wyeth v. Levine regarding generic drug labeling obligations.
In Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, alleging disability from physical conditions like tendonitis and bursitis as well as mental impairments. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after no objections were filed. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's credibility findings against the claimant and the decision to accord little weight to her treating source opinions and GAF scores.
.jpg?width=900)