Goldstein v. Countrywide Homes, Inc., April 1, 2008 (Tennille)(unpublished)

The Court threw out a securities fraud case that would otherwise have been within the scope of its mandatory jurisdiction because there were already two cases pending in Wake County making similar claims. One of those cases had already received a Rule 2.1 designation as an exceptional case. The Court found that it would be more efficient if discovery in the cases was coordinated, and that inconsistent rulings would be avoided, and recommended that the case receive a 2.1 designation.

See this post for other cases involving challenges to the Court's mandatory jurisdiction.

Full Opinion

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?