Plaintiff, the former employer of the defendant insurance broker, sued to enforce his amended employment agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the agreement had been superceded by an exit agreement, that a later stock purchase agreement had served as a novation of the employment agreement, and finally that the non-competition provisions in the employment
Case Database
State v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 2006 NCBC 22 (N.C. Super. Dec. 4, 2006)(Tennille)
The Court granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration of claims arising out of the Master Settlement Agreement between the major tobacco manufacturers and the states. The Court found the language of the arbitration clause, which contained the words "any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to" be very broad. The Court also…
Classic Coffee Concepts, Inc. v. Anderson, 2006 NCBC 21 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2006)(Diaz)
Defendant, who was a director, shareholder and former employee of the corporate plaintiff, moved to disqualify the corporate plaintiff’s counsel. He argued that he reasonably believed that the law firm had represented him with regard to the agreements at issue and a guaranty agreement. He also argued that disqualification was appropriate because the corporation’s lawyers…
CNC/Access, Inc. v. Scruggs, 2006 NCBC 20 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2006)(Tennille)
Plaintiff sued a departed employee, alleging that she had violated her confidentiality agreement and her non-competition agreement. The Court found defendant’s new employer had not tortiously interfered with her contract. It found the provision on which plaintiff relied, restricting its employees from providing services to any of its clients for 180 days following the termination…
Puckett v. KPMG, LLP, 2006 NCBC 19 (N.C. Super. Nov. 15, 2006, amended Nov. 16, 2006)(Diaz)
The Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend to add a claim for violation of the North Carolina RICO Claim, finding that it would be futile. The statute requires that a plaintiff allege "at least one act of racketeering activity other than (i) an act indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or U.S.C. § 1343 [prohibiting…
Mascaro v. Mountaineer Land Group, LLC, 2006 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2006)(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…
Heafner v. City of Gastonia, 2006 NCBC 17 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2006)(Diaz)
This was a Writ of Certiorari to the Business Court asking for the reversal of a zoning decision by a City. The City had issued a conditional use permit authorizing a proposed development. To the extent that there were claims of errors of law, the Court reviewed the matter de novo. To the extent that…
The Virkler Co. v. Chemical Technologies, LLC, 2006 NCBC 16 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 6, 2006)(Diaz)
The Court refused to dismiss counterclaims against third party defendants as a result of the defendant’s failure to serve them with process, even though the third party defendants had filed a motion to dismiss before the service error was corrected.
Chemcraft Holdings Corp. v. Shayban, 2006 NCBC 13 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 5, 2006)(Tennille)
Plaintiff’s counsel had verbal discussions with the defendant, before litigation began, about the possibility of representation against his former employer. In the course of those discussions, the defendant sent counsel an email containing confidential information about the potential litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel had never looked at the contents, and thereafter represented the employer.
Defendant moved to…
Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLC, 2006 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 26, 2006)(Diaz)
Following a thorough discussion of the elements of a valid contract, the Court found a question of material fact whether the parties had agreed on all the material terms of the contract which plaintiff claimed entitled him to a significant bonus. Plaintiff was not required to show that the bonus had actually been paid in…