There was no tortious interference contract claim against a defendant who sold product to plaintiff’s competitor. This was a legitimate exercise of the defendant’s rights.
There was no claim for negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, against the defendant because the plaintiff’s claims were for breach of warranty and covered by the UCC, and also because of the
Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff, who was the majority shareholder of a family corporation, couldn’t have had an expectation of a fiduciary duty from him because the Defendant had had an affair with Plaintiff’s wife. The Court disagreed, and said that the existence of a fiduciary duty under these circumstances was a question of fact.
An Arbitration Award was entitled to collateral estoppel effect, even though the Defendants had not been parties to the arbitration.
The Court compared the claims made in the Arbitration to the claims made in the Amended Complaint, and found them to be identical. It further determined that the Plaintiff had "a full and fair opporutnity to litigate
The Business Court denied the Defendant’s request to amend its Answer to add a statute of limitations defense and a defense of ERISA preemption. Judge Tennille found that the Defendant had unduly delayed by raising the statute of limitations defense fourteen months after the filing of its Answer, and that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced if it
The Business Court had mandatory jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4 over plaintiff’s lawsuit because it involved claims involving antitrust law, even though the complaint did not specifically allege an antitrust claim. It was sufficient that the claim was essentially based on a "contract in restraint of trade." The Court held:
Plaintiff has asked the
A party making claims out of the dissolution of a law firm PLLC was not entitled to proceed on its unfair and deceptive practices. Judge Tennille held that the claims between the lawyers involved an "internal dispute," and that such disputes did not "affect commerce" as required by the statute.
There was also an issue
The Business Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that he had been dismissed from his employment in violation of the public policy of North Carolina.
Plaintiff, a doctor who had been employed by the Defendant medical practice, alleged that he had been forced to resign his employment while he was disabled and seeking medical treatment. He asserted that
The Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4 over claims involving "antitrust law, except claims based solely on unfair competition under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1."
The Court gave a broad reading to its grant of its antitrust jurisdiction in an Order today in Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, in
When you have an additional three days to respond to a filing served by mail, and the response period ends on a weekend or holiday, this is how you calculate the response period:
"The correct formula for the computation of a time period during which a filing is required is as follows: number of days
The Court of Appeals affirmed yesterday a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a claim under the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, in Washburn v. Yadkin Valley Bank and Trust Co.
In Washburn, the Defendant had made a counterclaim charging that the Plaintiffs, former employees, had misappropriated its trade secrets. The trade secrets the Defendant referenced