The Court considered the dismissal of a North Carolina class action following the Illinois settlement of a nationwide class action. Court approval was required, even though the class had never been certified, but the plaintiff had attempted to dismiss its case following the settlement without leave of Court.
The Business Court had tentatively agreed to
The Court, again, considered the issue of indirect purchaser standing. It reiterated the factors it looks to in determining whether there is such standing, as articulated in its opinion in Crouch v. Crompton Corp.
Crouch had involved one product, tires, but this case involved ethylene propylene diene monomer, which the Court observed might be used
A multi-state class action was settled in New Mexico. As a result, funds were to made available to North Carolina for a cy pres distribution to "public and/or non-profit entities that use MSG and Nucleotides and/or products that use MSG or Nucleotides." There was no specification, however, of what entities should receive the funds, or
The Court grappled in this case with what it referred to as "the mysteries of the economic loss doctrine." The Court identified six "guideposts" regarding the scope of doctrine in North Carolina: (1) a tort action will generally not lie against a party to a contract who simply fails to perform the terms of the
The Court considered a rarity here, a Motion to Dismiss an appeal. Trial courts have jurisdiction to consider such motions until the Record on Appeal is filed.
The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss because plaintiff had failed to take various actions required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, including ordering a transcript, contacting opposing
The Court considered in this case the scope of an arbitrator’s authority with regard to disputes involving a North Carolina LLC. It first determined that the interpretation of the arbitration clause before it was subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, because the contract was a "transaction involving commerce."
It held that whether a dispute is
Defendant, via a counterclaim, sought damages as a result of a concluded merger involving a Delaware LLC. The Court held that the decision whether to merge belonged to the Management Committee of the LLC, and that it would review that decision pursuant to the Business Judgment Rule.
Defendant contended that company insiders "stood on both
This was round two in this derivative action, in which the Court had previously held that the involvency of the general partners of a North Carolina partnership and a Delaware partnership did not excuse the need for a plaintiff to make a demand before filing a derivative action. The former derivative plaintiff then took steps
Plaintiff designated its expert witness in an untimely way, without any good reason. Plaintiff furthermore had not seasonably supplemented an earlier discovery response seeking the identification of expert witnesses. The Court emphasized the duty of parties to comply with the Court’s scheduling orders, and stated "[p]ut bluntly, when it comes to matters of case management and
The Court granted a Motion to Quash a subpoena to a non-party. The subpoena was served on the non-party at its corporate offices in Texas, and demanded production of the requested documents in North Carolina. The non-party had no presence in North Carolina, but was licensed by the North Carolina Department of Insurance to do