Business Court 101

Subscribe to Business Court 101 via RSS

I wrote yesterday about the arbitration aspects of Gaylor, Inc. v. Vizor, LLC, 2015 NCBC 98.

But there is a significant aspect of Business Court procedure addressed in that case which deserved its own post.

It concerns the authority of a non-Business Court Judge (i.e. a regular Superior Court Judge) to make a ruling in a case after the case is designated to the Business Court.

Business Court Rule 15.1 seems to preclude that kind of ruling. It says that:

[a]fter a case has been assigned or designated

…
Continue Reading You CAN Get A Ruling From A Superior Court Judge After Your Case Is Designated To The Business Court

There’s an ominous sounding sentence in a Business Court decision this week:

A party practicing before the North Carolina Business Court should take the deadlines imposed by its orders and the rules of practice very seriously.

Estate of Capps v. Blondeau. 2014 NCBC 24 at 36.  It is so ominous sounding that you would expect that sentence to be followed by punishment of the non-compliant party.  But Judge Jolly exercised mercy over the party which hadn’t followed the rules.

What was the rule violation?  Two of the Defendants…

Continue Reading Complying With The Rules Is Important In The Business Court

After a case is designated to the Business Court, the Clerk of Court in the county in which the case is pending no longer has the authority to grant a motion for extension of time.  In this case, per Business Court Rule 9.2, the Court struck the Order entered by the Clerk granting an extension of time and directed the party to re-file a motion in compliance with the rules of the Court.

OrderContinue Reading Harvey v. Schwartz, April 14, 2009 (Diaz)(unpublished)

The Court struck an Entry of Default which had been signed by an assistant clerk of court in the county where the case had been filed.  The entry of default was signed after the case was designated to the Business Court.  Judge Diaz cited Business Court Rule 15.1, stating:

Because the above-captioned cases are Business Court cases, the Clerk of Court had no authority to enter this Order and Entry of Default. See BCR 15.1 (“After a case has been assigned or designated to the Business Court, and for as

…
Continue Reading Estwanik v. Gudeman, March 6, 2009 (Diaz)(unpublished)

The Court struck Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because it violated Business Court Rule 15.2, which requires that "[]ll motions, unless made orally during a hearing or trial, . . . be in paper writing or electronic form and . . . be accompanied by a brief . . . set out in a separate paper."  Defendants had incorporated their Motion and the arguments in support of the Motion into a single filing. 

The Court granted leave to refile the Motion, but observed that it had been filed before the…

Continue Reading Medicus Healthcare, LLC v. Nazemetz, February 25, 2009 (Diaz)(unpublished)

The parties failed to submit their designation of mediator to the Court by the deadline provided for in the Case Management Order, and also after an inquiry from the Court.  The Court held that the parties had as a result "forfeited their right" to select a mediator. 

The parties were also delinquent in filing their good faith estimate of costs.  The Court ordered that document to be filed by a set date, and held that if the parties did not complete that filing that they would be required to show…

Continue Reading Camper v. Brooks, October 27, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)

Business Court Rule 9.2 says that "the movant shall have a good faith basis for requesting any . . . extension of time and, except in extraordinary cases, the movant shall first consult with any opposing party and reflect that party’s position in the motion and indicate whether the opposing party wishes to be heard on the motion."

If you don’t follow the Rules, you aren’t going to get your extension.  In Velocity Fiber Broadband, LLC v. Lang Management, Inc., the required consultation hadn’t occurred.  Judge Jolly, in denying…

Continue Reading Velocity Fiber Broadband, LLC v. Lang Management, Inc., Sept. 10, 2007 (Jolly)(unpublished)

In North Carolina Superior Court, there is no civil procedure tradition more respected than the courtesy of a thirty day extension of time to answer a Complaint or to respond to discovery.  Like it or not, motions seeking the extra month are granted almost without exception, and are so routine that the requesting party usually doesn’t even bother to ask for the consent of opposing counsel.

The same courtesy applies in the Business Court, but there are rules to be followed.  Business Court Rule 9.2 says that "the movant shall have a good faith…

Continue Reading Rules Are Rules, Make Sure To Comply With Those Of The Business Court

Compliance with the meet and confer obligations contained in Business Court Rule 18.6 is essential before the filing of a discovery motion.

In this case, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order because of counsel’s failure to comply with the certification requirements of that Rule.  Judge Tennille held that "this reason alone is sufficient for the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion."

Full OpinionContinue Reading Wicks v. Moody, May 14, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)

When you have an additional three days to respond to a filing served by mail, and the response period ends on a weekend or holiday, this is how you calculate the response period:

"The correct formula for the computation of a time period during which a filing is required is as follows: number of days allowed under applicable statute + three days under Rule 6(e) + any weekend or holiday under Rule 6(a). The Court notes that the three days under Rule 6(e) is added to the end of the

…
Continue Reading Gateway Management Services, Inc. v. Advanced Lubrication Technology, Inc., 2008 NCBC 11 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 5, 2008)(Tennille)