The Court of Appeals held on June 17, 2008 in Dailey v. Popma that a defendant’s Internet postings, even though available in North Carolina and causing injury in North Carolina, aren’t sufficient for personal jurisdiction unless the postings are "targeted" to residents of the State.
In Dailey, the plaintiff claimed that Popma had posted
This is a list of the eight cases (my count) in which Motions to Dismiss are fully briefed and ready for a ruling, with links to the Business Court file for each case:
CompuChem v. Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.: whether employee owed employer a fiduciary duty, validity of claim for aiding and abetting breach of
The Business Court today granted in part, and denied in part, a Motion to Dismiss in Gateway Management Services, Ltd. v. Advanced Lubrication Technology, Inc. Judge Tennille ruled on claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent misrepresentation, and misappropriation of trade secrets, among others.
Plaintiff (Gateway) alleged that the Defendant (ALT) sold it
The case of Land v. Land is a minority shareholder dispute among shareholders of a family business.
The Business Court sees these kinds of disputes regularly, and there’s not much novel in the Court’s Order today denying summary judgment in a fight over a masonry business involving two brothers and their father.
The part of the
Today, Judge Jolly ruled on a Motion to Dismiss in Essa Commercial Real Estate, Inc. v. Five Trees, LLC, in which the issues involved defenses of issue preclusion based on an Arbitration Award.
The Court determined that the Award was entitled to collateral estoppel effect — even though the Defendants had not been parties to the
The only place that you are likely to find a written opinion from a North Carolina Court on a discovery issue is from the Business Court. Those kinds of interlocutory issues just don’t get addressed by appellate courts.
So, here’s a post about a (very) short June 10, 2008 Order in Harco National Insurance Co. v. BDO
Today, in Cope v. Daniel, the Business Court denied the Defendant’s request to amend its Answer to add a statute of limitations defense and a defense of ERISA preemption. Judge Tennille found that the Defendant had unduly delayed by raising the statute of limitations defense, and that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced if it were allowed. The Court denied the ERISA amendment for another reason, finding it to be futile.
The case involves a dispute between shareholders of a medical practice. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant engaged in financial misdoings, including charging unauthorized expenses to the practice, improperly reporting to taxing authorities, paying himself unauthorized distributions of salary and bonus, and overcharging rent.
The amendment on the statute of limitations was requested fourteen months after the original Answer was filed. The Court noted that the Complaint asserted claims based on events beginning as far back as 1999, and stated "[n]o questions have been raised as to whether Defendants knew at the time the complaint was filed . . . what claims were being asserted against them and during what timeframe."
The Court denied the Motion, holding that "[a] delay of over fourteen months before filing a statutes of limitation defense is an undue delay and causes undue prejudice to Plaintiff." It also held that "[a] defense based upon statutes of limitation is, by definition, time sensitive. A delay of over fourteen months before asking for an amendment could be acceptable in certain circumstances. . . . The situation where statutes of limitations defense is raised is not one of those circumstances."
The ERISA claim came in for a different analysis.Continue Reading Motion To Amend To Add Statute Of Limitations Defense Denied Based On Undue Delay
.jpg)
The Court granted a Motion for Protective Order yesterday in Delhaize America, Inc. v. Hinton. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about the entry of a Protective Order, which usually happens by consent, but this Protective Order may set some precedent in future Business Court cases.
The case involves the type of tax refund litigation which is
The "General Objections" that many lawyers put up front in their responses to discovery requests may not be effective. The Business Court held that such objections may violate the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a party to state its objections in response to each interrogatory:
Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure
The Business Court had mandatory jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4 over plaintiff’s lawsuit because it involved claims involving antitrust law, even though the complaint did not specifically allege an antitrust claim. It was sufficient that the claim was essentially based on a "contract in restraint of trade." The Court held:
Plaintiff has asked the