Plaintiff’s former employee was subject to restrictive covenants in an Amended Employment Agreement. He was also subject, however, to what he claimed were conflicting restrictions in a subsequently executed Stock Purchase Agreement. The former employee asserted that the claims under the Amended Employment Agreement should be dismissed.
The Court denied the Motion and struck the
The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order seeking to delay the taking of the depositions of its representatives. It held that the defendants had unreasonably taken the position that they could not be available for depositions for nearly four months. It also rejected their argument that their primary counsel could not be available
The issue here was whether the parties had reached an agreement by which defendant was to pay fees to plaintiff for managing an advertising program. Plaintiff alleged that the agreement was "non-cancellable" for a term of one year. The Court found that the correspondence relied upon by plaintiff did not establish a binding contract. Although
Plaintiff, the former employer of the defendant insurance broker, sued to enforce his amended employment agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the agreement had been superceded by an exit agreement, that a later stock purchase agreement had served as a novation of the employment agreement, and finally that the non-competition provisions in the employment
The Court granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration of claims arising out of the Master Settlement Agreement between the major tobacco manufacturers and the states. The Court found the language of the arbitration clause, which contained the words "any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to" be very broad. The Court also
Defendant, who was a director, shareholder and former employee of the corporate plaintiff, moved to disqualify the corporate plaintiff’s counsel. He argued that he reasonably believed that the law firm had represented him with regard to the agreements at issue and a guaranty agreement. He also argued that disqualification was appropriate because the corporation’s lawyers
Plaintiff sued a departed employee, alleging that she had violated her confidentiality agreement and her non-competition agreement. The Court found defendant’s new employer had not tortiously interfered with her contract. It found the provision on which plaintiff relied, restricting its employees from providing services to any of its clients for 180 days following the termination
The Court denied plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend to add a claim for violation of the North Carolina RICO Claim, finding that it would be futile. The statute requires that a plaintiff allege "at least one act of racketeering activity other than (i) an act indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or U.S.C. § 1343 [prohibiting
The out of state defendant, who had received payments from the plaintiff on a promissory note, was subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. Money was a "thing of value" within the meaning of the North Carolina long arm statute. The Court further found that it had specific jurisdiction over the defendant with regard to
This was a Writ of Certiorari to the Business Court asking for the reversal of a zoning decision by a City. The City had issued a conditional use permit authorizing a proposed development. To the extent that there were claims of errors of law, the Court reviewed the matter de novo. To the extent that