The Business Court held that it had mandatory jurisdiction over a case involving the sale of financial products, holding "It is sufficient for purposes of removal to the Business Court that there are issues concerning which law applies which will have industry-wide application. The potential thus exists for the establishment of case law which may
Case Database
Delhaize America, Inc. v. Hinton, January 31, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Business Court held that it had mandatory jurisdiction over a case involving complex tax matters. The Court also noted that its decision "could have implications for other companies, and thus the publication of a written opinion by this Court could prove beneficial to the State and those companies."
Bueche v. Noel, June 4, 2007 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Business Court found that a case raising claims for receivership, securities law violations, piercing the corporate veil, and unfair and deceptive practices fell within its mandatory jurisdiction. Among other things, the Court held that "claims based on piercing the corporate veil clearly fall within" its mandatory jurisdiction because they involve a material issue related…
Fisher v. Communications Workers of America, 2008 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2008)
Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant Union had violated the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act by its posting of a list of their social security numbers on a company bulletin board. The Plaintifs also made claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices and for invasion of privacy.
The Act specifically provides that a business may…
Albemarle Electric Membership Corp. v. Temple, Oct. 30, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Business Court held that it had mandatory jurisdiction over a claim involving the interpretation and validity of the corporate bylaws of an electric membership cooperative. The bylaws were similar to those of a number of other electric membership cooperatives, and the Court held "that the disposition of this case may have an impact far…
Taking The Fifth Results In Adverse Inference And Entry Of Preliminary Injunction In Trade Secrets Case
The Defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was the basis for the North Carolina Business Court’s entry of a Preliminary Injunction on October 29th in Amacell LLC v. Bostic.
Plaintiff asserted that its former employee, a senior research scientist, had misappropriated trade secrets and violated a confidentiality agreement. The Defendant…
Camper v. Brooks, October 27, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
The parties failed to submit their designation of mediator to the Court by the deadline provided for in the Case Management Order, and also after an inquiry from the Court. The Court held that the parties had as a result "forfeited their right" to select a mediator.
The parties were also delinquent in filing their…
Velocity Fiber Broadband, LLC v. Lang Mangement, Inc., October 14, 2008 (unpublished)(Tennille)
The Court found that a Complaint seeking commissions due which would require the interpretation of various infrastructure agreements concerning "the fiber optic infrastructure to support the provision of telecommunication and internet services" fell within its jurisdiction over matters involving "the internet and electronic commerce."
The Court found additional support for the designation in Defendant’s counterclaim…
Workplace Benefits, LLC v. Lifecare, Inc., July 14, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)
If a case involves only a breach of a covenant not to compete or a confidentiality agreement, it is not within the mandatory "unfair competition" jurisdiction of the North Carolina Business Court.
The Complaint in this case asserted that the Defendant was improperly using a Confidentiality Agreement signed by the individual Plaintiff to threaten her so she wouldn’t call on potential…
Bolick v. Sipe, July 22, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The North Carolina Business Court rejected a novel argument regarding the validity of post-employment consideration for a covenant not to compete. It also dealt with the issue of the validity of a summons issued in the wrong name.
On the non-compete side, Plaintiff signed the non-compete with the cleaning company for which she had worked three years…