This was a dispute between insurance agents and an insurer for which they had sold policies.
Plaintiff asserted that the Court had personal jurisdiction over a parent company with an indirect subsidiary in North Carolina based on the alter ego doctrine. The Court held that "if [the parent] has dominated and controlled. . . a second
Moody v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2008 NCBC 14 (N.C. Super. Ct. August 6, 2008)
The North Carolina Business Court has set out an explicit set of procedures to be followed when parties take a voluntary dismissal of a class action before a decision on class certification.
This Order yesterday by Judge Tennille in the Moody case
On August 5th, in Hamm v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Judge Jolly certified a class action against health insurer Blue Cross. The class will consist of Blue Cross members who claim that their medical providers charged them more than the amount the providers had contracted with Blue Cross to charge for their
.jpg)
It was a busy opinion day today in the North Carolina Court of Appeals: there were 44 published opinions, three of which I’m commenting about briefly below. The three involve a range of issues, including arbitrator immunity, Rule 11 sanctions, and an technical point about subpoenas in state tax refund litigation and also work product privilege.
The
A-1 Pavement Marking, LLC v. APMI Corp., 2008 NCBC 13 (N.C. Super. Ct. August 4, 2008)(Diaz)
The North Carolina Business Court on August 4th denied a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on a counterclaim for reformation of an asset purchase agreement. Judge Diaz, in denying the Motion, held that if the reformation were
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed an LLC member’s fiduciary duty claims against a manager based on grounds of standing in Morris v. Hennon & Brown Properties, LLC.
The Defendant LLC was an investor and member of three limited liability companies. It alleged in a counterclaim that
The Court overruled an objection to its mandatory jurisdiction in this case involving a software license agreement. It held, in affirming Defendant’s Notice of Designation of the case as one involving "intellectual property law," that:
Software licensing has become an integral part of economic life. Decisions concerning software licensing can have an impact beyond the confines
The Court dismissed the derivative claim of a minority shareholder who alleged that the majority shareholders of the corporation had breached their fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders by failing to make distributions, failing to investigate allegations on that subject, and terminating the minority shareholder’s employment.
The Court held that this was not a proper
Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a Shareholders’ Agreement requiring the Defendant, a terminated employee, to tender his shares back to the Plaintiff. The repurchase was ordered even though the Defendant claimed that his termination was wrongful.
The Court granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and held:
Specific performance is appropriate when
The Business Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery, without discussion, in its Order in this covenant not to compete case. From looking at Defendant’s brief in opposition, what probably doomed the motion was that the one year non-compete period had nearly expired when Plaintiff requested expedited discovery. The same Order was entered on