The Court granted a Motion to Strike, finding that statements made in the Complaint had been made in the course of settlement negotiations, and therefore inadmissible pursuant to Rule 408 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The Court rejected the argument that the statements concerned settlement of a different claim, not at issue in
Levy Investments v. James River Group, Inc., September 19, 2007 (Tennille)(unpublished)
There were parallel actions challenging a merger, one in Delaware and one, filed first, in North Carolina. Defendant filed a motion to stay the North Carolina action. The Court identified twelve factors it would consider in such situations, including whether the issues should be settled in the corporation’s state of incorporation, the convenience of parties
Epes v. Healthsouth Corp, February 8, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The issue was whether a letter formed an enforceable contract. After a thorough discussion of the elements of a valid contract, the Court found that the letter lacked mutual assent as to material elements necessary to create an enforceable contract, including the price to be paid, identification of the parties, and the subject matter of the
Burgess v. Vitola, 2008 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2008)(Diaz)
The Court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over out-of-state doctors and dentists who had allegedly sent internet advertising to plaintiff, a North Carolina resident. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that there was jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. §1-75.4(4)(a), which allows for the assertion of jurisdiction when “solicitation or services activities were carried on within this State
Signalife, Inc. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 2008 NCBC 3 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2008)(Diaz)
The Court applied the literal definition of "first to file" in ruling on a Motion to Stay. One party had e-filed in federal court several hours before the other party had hand filed a similar action in state court. The Court held that the party which had e-filed had priority, and stayed the case before
Egelhof v. Szulik, 2008 NCBC 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 2008)(Tennille)
The Court found that plaintiff was an inadequate representative to lead a derivative action. A derivative action plaintiff has fiduciary obligations to the company on whose behalf he brings a suit. This plaintiff had no experience in litigation, no involvement in the suit, and only a small stake in the company. On the point of plaintiff’s
Classic Coffee Concepts, Inc. v. Anderson, 2008 NCBC 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2008)(Diaz)
Defendant, a terminated employee, owned one third of the outstanding stock of Classic Coffee Concepts. The issue was the price to be paid for the stock, which the corporation was obligated to repurchase under a Stockholders Agreement. The Agreement said that the price would be determined by looking to the fair market value of the
Bank of America Corporation v. SR International Business Insurance Company, Ltd., 2007 NCBC 36 (N.C. Super. Dec. 19, 2007)(Tennille)
The principal issue here was insurance coverage for Bank of America’s settlement payments in connection with litigation against it relating to Worldcom. The Court rejected the insurer’s argument the Bank had not suffered a "loss" within the meaning of the policies because the public policy of North Carolina would not permit insurance coverage for claims
Wake County v. Hotels.Com, LP, 2007 NCBC 35 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2007)(Diaz)
Four North Carolina counties sued hotels.com, alleging that the online aggregator purchased blocks of hotel rooms from hotel owners and only paid occupancy tax based on the price paid, even though they sold those rooms to lodgers for more than they had paid and even though the lodgers paid occupancy tax based upon the higher
Better Business Forms & Products, Inc. v. Craver, 2007 NCBC 34 (N.C. Super. Nov. 1, 2007)(Tennille)
Defendant had entered into a covenant not to compete with his employer, BBF. The assets of BBF, including its contract rights, were acquired by GDX. GDX then terminated defendant’s employment per the agreement, and hired him directly. There was no new non-compete agreement entered into directly between GDX and defendant. Years later, GDX filed for