Case Database

Subscribe to Case Database via RSS

The Court granted a Motion to Stay in this case, ruling that the plaintiff was required to litigate its claims in New York, even though its North Carolina action had been filed before the New York action.   N.C.G.S. Sec. 1-75.12 in favor of their own later filed action.  The Court granted the Motion after considering the…

This case involved a troubled company, whose board of directors had hired turnaround consultants to assist with management. When the composition of the board of directors changed, the new board sued the consultants, and others, for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging that the consultants had withheld information from the board and that they had been…

The attorneys for the parties missed the mediation deadline set by the Court, twice. They ultimately did mediate, and did settle some of the claims in the case. The Court sanctioned them, however, finding that their explanations for missing the deadlines were inadequate and without good cause. The Court noted that North Carolina’s Rules Implementing…

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…

This opinion contains a thorough discussion of the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiff had purchased "sight chambers," used for monitoring intravenous feeds, made with raw material supplied by defendant. Defendant had used low grade materials to fulfill its end of the contract, which led to plaintiff having to recall millions of sight chambers.

As the Court…

Plaintiff sought to enjoin a merger. He alleged that the defendants, directors of the company to be acquired, had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose pertinent information to the shareholders, failing to maximize shareholder value, and agreeing to a coercive and unreasonable termination fee.

The Court noted that it was uncertain whether plaintiff…