Jurisdiction

Subscribe to Jurisdiction via RSS

The Court denied a motion for "alternative service of process" on a foreign defendant, ruling that the Plaintiff had not shown it had exhausted the traditional means of service available under Rule 4(j3) by attempting service through the means specified in the Hague Convention.

The Court further stated that if Plaintiff could not with due diligence serve the foreign defendant through traditional means, that it would allow for service of process by publication.  The Court referenced an earlier order in another case in which it had done so.

Full OpinionContinue Reading Pharma Services Network, Inc. v. Associated Medical Group, Corp., June 26, 2009 (Diaz)(unpublished)

This was a dispute between insurance agents and an insurer for which they had sold policies.

Plaintiff asserted that the Court had personal jurisdiction over a parent company with an indirect subsidiary in North Carolina based on the alter ego doctrine.  The Court held that "if [the parent] has dominated and controlled. . . a second tier subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, to the extent that the corporate veil may be pierced, such action would justify assertion of jurisdiction over the parent."  Although the Court found the allegations of dominance…

Continue Reading Hinson v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc., August 23, 2001 (Tennille)(unpublished)

Service of process can be made by leaving the Summons and Complaint at the Defendant’s residence, even though not in literal compliance with Rule 4, if the Defendant has evaded service.

The Defendant will waive an objection to service (and to jurisdiction) by filing a Notice of Designation to the North Carolina Business Court, because "the filing of a Notice of Designation in an action constitutes a general appearance for the purpose of personal jurisdiction."  To keep such objections alive, the Notice of Designation must contain an objection to personal jurisdiction. 

On a covenant…

Continue Reading Covenant Equipment Corp. v. Forklift Pro, Inc., 2008 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 1, 2008)(Tennille)

The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on their lack of minimum contacts with the State of North Carolina. The Court found that defendants had not made a general appearance in the case, and thereby waived their right to contest jurisdiction by participating in discovery, by asking the Court to set a peremptory trial date, and by asking to be excused from the mediation conference.

Full OpinionContinue Reading Deer Corp. v. Donahue, August 28, 2003 (Diaz)(unpublished)

The Court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state doctors and dentists who had allegedly sent internet advertising to plaintiff, a North Carolina resident.  The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that there was jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. §1-75.4(4)(a), which allows for the assertion of jurisdiction when “solicitation or services activities were carried on within this State or by or on behalf of the defendant.”

The Court stated that “it makes absolutely no sense that Moving Defendants, all of whom operate law or dental practices in states far removed from North Carolina, would…

Continue Reading Burgess v. Vitola, 2008 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2008)(Diaz)

The out of state defendant, who had received payments from the plaintiff on a promissory note, was subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. Money was a "thing of value" within the meaning of the North Carolina long arm statute. The Court further found that it had specific jurisdiction over the defendant with regard to the matters at issue, which involved the same development project on which he had received payment pursuant to the promissory note.

The Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, however, finding that plaintiff had failed to…

Continue Reading Mascaro v. Mountaineer Land Group, LLC, 2006 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2006)(Diaz)

In this class action against an automobile manufacturer, plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer had committed fraud by advertising the safety of its vehicles even though they did not have a brake shift interlock system. Plaintiff sought damages — even though they had suffered no injury as yet — and an injunction ordering a recall of the vehicles.

The Court granted summary judgment because the only loss suffered by plaintiffs was theoretical loss in the value of their vehicles, and such a claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Allowing…

Continue Reading Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004 NCBC 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2004)(Tennille), aff’d, 172 N.C. App. 386, 617 S.E.2d 306 (2005), aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 398, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006)

Action by plaintiff alleging that defendants had engaged in action in violation of statute was rendered moot by amendment of statute. The Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a result of the amendment.

Full OpinionContinue Reading Springer-Eubank Co. v. Four County Electric Membership Corp., 1999 NCBC 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 13, 1999)(Tennille), aff’d, 142 N.C.App. 496, 543 S.E.2d 197 (2001)