Long time readers of this blog know that you can’t designate a case limited to a covenant not to compete to the Business Court. That’s the Lifecare case, from 2008, in which Judge Tennille said "every suit based upon a breach of a restrictive covenant . . . [will not] give rise to a mandatory
COA Sets Aside $2.1 Million Unfair and Deceptive Practices Verdict Against Bank
You all know that there is no Chapter 75 claim for a breach of contract unless there are "substantial aggravating circumstances." What if you have the substantial aggravating circumstances but you don’t have a breach of contract? The Court of Appeals answered that question Tuesday in SunTrust Bank v. Bryant/Sutphin Properties, LLC.
The answer
Ethics And Email, From The NC State Bar
The intersection of technology and the rules of ethics continues to develop. The NC State Bar has proposed a new FEO (2012 Formal Ethics Opinion 5), which deals with the interesting question of the attorney-client privilege of an employee’s emails to her personal lawyer that are on her employer’s email system.
If Your
Legalzoom Strikes Out In Declaratory Judgment Action Against NC State Bar
Sometimes you have a hard time telling who won and who lost a motion ruling. That’s true of Judge Gale’s ruling on Monday in Legalzoom, Inc. v. The North Carolina State Bar, 2012 NCBC 47.
You are all undoubtedly familiar with Legalzoom, an on-line purveyor of do it yourself legal documents. This isn’t the
The Last Word On That Thirty Days
I hope you don’t think I am harping on this recent change in the procedure for designating a case to the Business Court, but on Friday Judge Jolly withdrew his Order in the Kight v. Ganymede Holdings II, Inc. case, recognizing that it was "a change in the previous practice relative to certain time
Change In Business Court Designation Procedure: A Plaintiff No Longer Has 30 Days From Filing A Complaint To Designate The Case To The Business Court
There was one thing I could have told you for sure about Business Court procedure before August 10th. That was that a Plaintiff had 30 days from the filing of his Complaint to designate the case to the Business Court per N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4.
That certainty was based on a decision from
Please Nominate This Blog For The ABA “Blawg 100”
Do me a favor. Take five minutes and fill out an American Bar association form (link here) nominating this blog to be included on the ABA’s list of the 100 best legal blogs.
The blog fits pretty well the criteria set out by the ABA for a nomination. The ABA says:
- We’re primarily
You Need All Your Ducks In A Row To Prove Default Under A Security Agreement
The Plaintiff in Kreich, Inc. v. Tarheel Publishing Co. thought he had all of his ducks in a row for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. But he didn’t.
Defendant was in serious default under promissory notes given in connection with its acquisition of the Plaintiff’s interest in an LLC. Payments were due on
Motion to Compel Yields in Camera Review of Discovery to Bank
The Order on the Motion to Compel last week in WNC Holdings, LLC v. Alliance Bank & Trust Co. will be of particular interest to lawyers in litigation with banks.
The case deals mainly with the discoverability of a bank’s "compliance review documents." Those are defined by statute as "documents prepared for or created by
Business Court Rules On Multiple Discovery Issues, Including: Validity Of Subpoena, Deposing Opposing Counsel, And Need For A Motion For A Protective Order
There haven’t been a lot of opinions from the Business Court on Motions to Compel, but yesterday there were two, both from Judge Murphy. In the first, Blue Ridge Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Inc. v. First Colony Healthcare, LLC, 2012 NCBC 45, the Judge found a general objection insufficient to withstand the Motion to Compel