There were three North Carolina Supreme Court decisions today which are worth a mention, involving personal jurisdiction, depositions, and the North Carolina Whistleblower Act:
In the personal jurisdiction case, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals in an alienation of affections case, Brown v. Ellis. The Court ruled that there was jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff’s bribes to an employee of the Defendant didn’t bar the Plaintiff’s unfair and deceptive practices claim, per the Court of Appeals decision today in Media Network, Inc. v. Long Haymes Carr, Inc., The ruling upheld a $1.3 million jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, trebled by the Business Court to $3,776,085.
Here’s a new one. Can you make a mandatory designation of a case directly from North Carolina District Court to the Business Court? Believe it or not, there are circumstances under which you might want to do that, so the Business Court’s opinion this month in Bailey Pointe Homeowners’ Association v. Strong is worth knowing
The Business Court today granted a Motion to Compel and delivered a harsh sanction to the Plaintiff: dismissal with prejudice of its Complaint. The case is TelSouth Solutions, Inc. v. Voyss Liquidation Company, LLC.
Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to discovery, standing alone, might not have warranted dismissal, but It had been preceded
Given the dinosaur-like status of the fax, it was a surprise that there were two North Carolina decisions last week, one from the Court of Appeals and one from the Business Court, that involved faxes. The appellate decision is a class action case; the Business Court decision addressed the more mundane subject of how much
Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty by securities broker fell within the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction over securities matters, as did issues regarding enforceability of arbitration provisions in brokerage agreement.
Opposition to Notice of Designation
.jpg)
Directors of corporations verging on insolvency can owe fiduciary duties to creditors under certain circumstances. Whether those duties were owed — and whether the claim for their breach had been released as a part of the corporation’s bankruptcy proceeding — were the main issues yesterday in Phillips and Jordan, Inc. v. Bostic, 2009 NCBC
You don’t see a "reverse" piercing the corporate veil case very often, but the Business Court decided one yesterday in Health Management Associates, Inc. v. Yerby, 2009 NCBC 14 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 1, 2009). The Court rejected a Plaintiff’s argument that its own corporate veil should be pierced, and granted summary judgment in
.jpg)
There isn’t much out there in the way of a road map from North Carolina’s state courts on how lawyers should fulfill their obligations to produce electronically stored information. So you might want to take notice of a little bit of direction in today’s Order from the Business Court in Hill v. StubHub, Inc.
By
Eighteen new cases were designated to the Business Court during the month of May 2009. Most are the usual disputes between members, partners, or shareholders of business organizations, but there are a few securities claims and a couple of trade secrets cases as well.
[Update: It’s actually nineteen new cases, I added the Napco case