Mediation often devolves into the mediator shuttling back and forth between two rooms, carrying alternating declining and increasing offers to the parties.
There are times during this ping ponging of offers when I wish the mediator was pushing harder on the other party to explain the absolute rightness of my client’s position, inevitably to result
The Court had mandatory jurisdiction over a case involving Internet advertising, holding "[t]hat issue falls squarely within the definition of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-45.4(a)(6) which covers material issues related to the Internet and electronic commerce. It also involves issues that would have implications for use of the Internet by others, both consumers and advertisers
The Business Court held that it had jurisdiction over a case relating to securities law under N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 7A-45.4(a)(2). The Complaint concerned issues regarding the ownership of shares in Centura Bank.
The Business Court held that it had mandatory jurisdiction over a case involving the sale of financial products, holding "It is sufficient for purposes of removal to the Business Court that there are issues concerning which law applies which will have industry-wide application. The potential thus exists for the establishment of case law which may
The Business Court held that it had mandatory jurisdiction over a case involving complex tax matters. The Court also noted that its decision "could have implications for other companies, and thus the publication of a written opinion by this Court could prove beneficial to the State and those companies."
The Business Court found that a case raising claims for receivership, securities law violations, piercing the corporate veil, and unfair and deceptive practices fell within its mandatory jurisdiction. Among other things, the Court held that "claims based on piercing the corporate veil clearly fall within" its mandatory jurisdiction because they involve a material issue related
Today, the North Carolina Court of Appeals said that it did not have the authority to adopt the "new" standard for consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion articulated last year by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
If Twombly is to become
The North Carolina Business Court today denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery in the putative shareholder class action seeking to enjoin the Wachovia-Wells Fargo Merger, but agreed to decide Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on an expedited basis, setting a hearing three weeks from today. (I wrote about the Motion for Expedited Discovery in
There’s been a lot of publicity about North Carolina Senate candidate Kay Hagan’s "lawsuit" against incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole over a television commercial suggesting that Hagan is "godless."
The subject of this post is that there technically isn’t a lawsuit at all, at least not yet. The court filing by Hagan illustrates an interesting quirk of North Carolina civil procedure. In North Carolina, you can start a legal proceeding without filing the Complaint which typically begins a lawsuit.
That’s pretty unusual. I’m not aware of any other state which has a procedure exactly like the one contained in Rule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which lets a lawyer file a Summons to start a lawsuit and to then follow up twenty days later with a Complaint detailing the claims against the defendant. (Though North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4(c) provide that you can start a lawsuit with a Summons and the Defendant can then demand that the Complaint be filed within twenty days).
The North Carolina procedure is colloquially called a "Summons without Complaint." Our Rule 3 provides that while a lawsuit is ordinarily started with the filing of a Complaint:
A civil action may also be commenced by the issuance of a summons when
(1) A person makes application to the court stating the nature and purpose of his action and requesting permission to file his complaint within 20 days and
(2) The court makes an order stating the nature and purpose of the action and granting the requested permission.
Why would a lawyer use this procedure? One reason might be to toll the statute of limitations, which obviously wasn’t necessary given the very recent airing of the commercial, or to try to be first to the courthouse when there is a dispute over where a particular claim should be litigated, also not a particularly significant factor in the dispute between the candidates.
There is a North Carolina form for a lawsuit started without a Complaint, which is exactly what Hagan filed to initiate her claim against Senator Dole. The filing lays out the basis for the lawsuit, probably in more detail than Rule 3 requires, because the Rule requires only "preliminary notice" of the nature of the claim. See, e.g., Morris v. Dickson, 14 N.C. App. 122, 187 S.E.2d 409 (1972). Continue Reading North Carolina Senate Campaign Lawsuit (Hagan v. Dole) Started By Summons Without Complaint