The law of North Carolina requires a disclosure by an automobile manufacturer when a repurchased vehicle (a lemon) is re-sold. Failing to do so constitutes "lemon laundering." Plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer was responsible for policing its dealers to make sure that they made the required disclosures when the dealers sold a car that they
Case Database
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)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Class Actions, Jurisdiction
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…
In re Quintiles Transnational Corp. Shareholders Litigation, 2003 NCBC 11 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
This opinion on attorneys’ fees was issued in tandem with the opinion in In re Wachovia Shareholders Litigation. Lawsuits had filed over a tender offer for the company, which led the Board of Directors to conduct an auction process which led to a higher price per share. Thereafter, class counsel and the defendant had…
In re Wachovia Shareholders Litigation, 2003 NCBC 10 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
The Court considered an award of attorneys fees following its determination that certain termination provisions of a merger agreement were invalid. This opinion was issued in tandem with opinion in In re Quintiles Transnational Shareholders Litigation.
Fee applications were made by attorneys representing a class of shareholders, as well as attorneys representing a derivative…
Mechanical Systems & Services, Inc. v. Carolina Air Solutions, L.L.C., 2003 NCBC 9 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
Plaintiff sought to enforce the stock repurchase provisions of a shareholders agreement with two former employees, the defendants. The Court found, however, that the price to be paid ($5 for stock with a book value of more than $36,000), and the circumstances under which the defendants had signed the agreement, rendered the transaction unconscionable. The…
Jacobs v. Physicians Weight Loss Center of America, Inc., 2003 NCBC 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2003)(Tennille), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 173 N.C. App. 663, 620 S.E.2d 232 (2005), cert. denied, 360 N.C. 290, 628 S.E.2d 3
By Mack Sperling on
This was a class action for unfair trade practices against a weight loss clinic. Plaintiffs’ claim rested partly on their argument that their contracts required them to buy prescriptions from the defendant at a price higher than they would have paid at an outside pharmacy. The Court granted summary judgment on this claim, holding that…
Adams v. Aventis, S.A., 2003 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
The Court found that an indirect purchaser had standing under North Carolina law to assert an antitrust claim, and denied a motion to dismiss. It certified the issue for immediate appeal.
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Enquist Equipment, L.L.C., 2003 NCBC 6 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 31, 2003)(Tennille), aff’d, 174 N.C. App. 49, 620 S.E.2d 222, disc. rev. denied, 360 N.C. 296, 629 S.E.2d 289 (2005)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Attorney Fees, Unfair & Deceptive Practices
This is the third of a series of cases involving Sunbelt, this one involving the successful plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. §75-16.1.
Smart Online, Inc. v. Opensite Technologies, Inc., 2003 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 14, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Contract Interpretation
A contract for the sale of software was a contract for the sale of goods, and therefore subject to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Enquist Equipment, L.L.C., 2003 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 2, 2003)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
The Court found that the actions of the defendants in pirating away employees and accounts of the plaintiff exceeded the bounds of fair and ethical competition and therefore constitute unfair and deceptive practices.
The Court referred to defendants’ conduct as "surreptitious and intentional," and undertaken while the employees solicited were still employed by the plaintiff.