Essay About Judge Hall And Federal Court

Buffalo Creek Essay
Buffalo Creek Essay Questionsmotions:2 motions filed by each party and the outcome of eachPiston argued for a motion to dismiss the case from them. They argued that they were not the correct defendant to sue because they were a shareholder in Buffalo Mining Company, and owned many other companies such as Brinks. They also argued they owned several other mining companies and they were nothing more than a shareholder. Judge Hall denies the motion for the time being while plaintiffs obtain full discoveryA second motion that was filed during the case was a motion for the Plantiff to amend their complaint. Arnold & Porter amended their complaint to add almost 200 more plaintiffs, bringing the total to 625, and $64 million in damage. It was granted by the judge and brought on the extra plaintiffs.Another motion that was filed was filed by the defendant was when Piston objected to the statement of the dollar amount of damages from the plaintiff. This forced Judge Hall to read the lengthy disaster stories so he could determine if the damages were sufficiently alleged. Piston was trying to get the case out of federal court by arguing that each plaintiff did not have damages greater than $10k. the judge ruled that there was damages greather than 10k and that the motion was dismissed.Another motion that was filed from the plaintiff was when they asked the court that the depositions be held in the buffalo creek valley rather than Charleston. They argued it would be more convient and less upsetting for the plaintiffs. They also objected that the plaintiffs go all the way to Williamson. It would be more convenient to send piston doctors to a facility at the mouth of the valley then send all 625 plaintiffs to Williamson. Judge Hall agreed with Piston and the plaintiffs were sent to the other locations and Piston had to pay them for travel and mile reimbursement.Motion to dismiss the case- filed by the defendants Jurisdictional MattersThe first question was whom they should sue; Buffalo Mining Company or Piston. They decided on suing Piston because they would have to sue Buffalo Mining Company in the state court of and in their home state of West Virginia and the mining company would have an advantage in the state court. Then they wanted to find a way to get the case into the federal court so it was unbiased toward the coal company. To get in the federal court, the West Virginia plaintiffs would have to sue the out of state Piston company. Then they looked at suing in 3 states; Washington, New York, and West Virginia. Washington would be possible if they could claim that Piston violated a federal law. New York was an option because it was Pistons home base. In the end they settled on suing in West Virginia in the federal court system. They decided to file in the Southern District because there was only one federal judge in the system, and she had worked on a similar case. Piston is the Buffalo Mining creeks sole shareholder, and In order to sue Piston they would have to prove the corporate veil was pierced. Corporate Veil is the protection that shareholders have from lawsuits when the corporation they own common stock in causes daages to others. Piercing the corporate veil is when a judge permits an injured preson to sue a corporations sole shareholder for injuries casued by the corporation. 6 Facts they provedEthics2 parties:         1) lawyers  2) judgesLawyersJudgeDamages4 different types of damages$110,000 recovery max in West Virgina for those killed by others (wrongful death limit)Punitive Damages- conduct must be reckless, used to punish the defendantCompensatory Damages- pay back the plaintiffs for his own losses, must prove the defendant was negligentRecovery for the survivors mental suffering. The mental suffering was psychic impairment and was claimed for each plaintiff, children and parents.Real property and personal property losses totaled $11 million, a figure the lawyers made up.The dollar value for suffering was more difficult for the lawyers to come up with. A partner at the lawfirm the lawyer was from said $25,000 so it was doubled and the plaintiffs alleged $50,000 for each person mental suffering damagesPunitive damages- $21 million, this was half of Pistons 42 milllion net income for the past year. When piston reported the potential financial effects of the disaster to the Securities and Exchange Commission, they assured their stockholders there would be no material effect on the financial situation of the company. The plaintiff used this statement against piston and alleged that the 21 million in punitive damages was necessary to ensure that there would be material effect on piston.It sought compensatory and punitive damages and a permanent injunction requiring Pittston to provide the plaintiffs with the same or equal housing and community facilities they enjoyed prior to the Flood and enjoining and restraining Pittston from constructing further refuse piles near Buffalo Creek.