This Motion to Intervene before the Court in this class action case against Microsoft was filed not by a potential party, but by a group of lawyers seeking to share in any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. The Court refused to allow the lawyers to intervene, because lawyers who have never been counsel of record
Voyager Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Bowen, February 13, 2007 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Court denied the Motion to Intervene by a shareholder of the defendant, a Delaware corporation, by which the proposed intervenor sought to compel an inspection of books and records and to compel an annual meeting. The Court held that "appropriate and efficient remedies" were available under Delaware law.
Exide Technologies v. Douglas, October 10, 2007 (Tennille)(unpublished)
In what County should a lawsuit seeking the final distribution of the assets of a limited liability company which has already been dissolved be filed? The answer is in the county where the LLC’s principal office is or was located. The Court therefore transferred venue in this case from Mecklenburg County to Forsyth County, finding
MJM Investigations, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., August 2, 2004 (Tennille)(unpublished)
This is an unpublished order approving settlement of a class action against Microsoft Corporation.
State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Imergent, Inc., July 31, 2007 (Tennille)(unpublished)
There is no limitation on the Business Court’s jurisdiction when it comes to cases involving the Internet and e-commerce. "The legislature specifically included cases relating to those subjects without any limitation on the nature of the legal issues involved. . . .It did so in order to provide a court with expertise in these areas
Media Network, Inc. v. Long Haymes Carr, Inc., January 14, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
The Court declined to award attorneys’ fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Statute. It found that there was no unwarranted refusal to fully resolve the matter, the case involved unique issues of law, and the defendant had valid reasons to refuse to settle this matter and to litigate it to conclusion.
Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLC, February 5, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
The individual defendants were personally liable for the judgment obtained by plaintiff under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Court refused to award liquidated damages, however, finding that the defendant had acted in good faith and had a reasonable basis for believing that their refusal to pay bonuses was not in violation of
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Sellars, January 29, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
The Court granted a preliminary injunction on a covenant not to compete even though defendant denied that he had signed the agreement and presented a handwriting expert who testified that his signature had been forged. The Court found that New York law applied to the covenant, that New York law permitted blue pencilling, and that
Gaskin v. The J.S. Proctor Co., LLC, January 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
Claims of limited partners against general partner were derivative, not direct. Limited partners cannot bring an individual action against a general partner in the absence of an injury to the limited partner that is "separate and distinct" to him or that arose from a breach of a "special duty" owed to the limited partner by
Edgewater Services, Inc. v. Epic Logistics, Inc., October 22, 2007 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Court discussed the consideration element of a post-employment covenant not to compete, nothing that an increase in compensation or a job promotion can be sufficient consideration.
The Court held the non-compete at issue invalid for other reasons, however, involving its temporal and geographic scope. First, the Court held that the covenant prevented the defendant