Business Court Rule 15.12, which is titled "Determination Of Discovery Motions Through Oral Argument Without Briefs" states that "with the consent of both parties and as allowed by the Court, the parties may present motions and the Court may resolve disputes regarding discovery matters through the use of an expedited oral argument procedure. Such motions
December 2008
North Carolina Business Court Dismisses Claim That Confidentiality Agreement Was Invalid Because It Was Overly Broad
Can a confidentiality agreement be too broad to be enforced? The North Carolina Business Court said it can be, under some circumstances, in Covenant Equipment Corp. v. Forklift Pro, Inc.
Before you keep reading, know that the case involved South Carolina, not North Carolina, law. North Carolina law on this point looks to be pretty…
J Freeman Floor Company, LLC v. Freeman, December 18, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
When a Plaintiff files a Rule 41 dismissal, and then refiles his action, Rule 41(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that he must pay the costs of the first action as a prerequisite to pursuing the new action. "[T}his section establishes a mechanical condition precedent that must be satisfied before that…
Possible Settlement Announced In Wachovia-Wells Fargo Merger Litigation
Wachovia and Wells Fargo have probably reached a settlement with the Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit over the merger between the two banks. The settlement, announced in Wachovia’s Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday evening, will if finalized require approval by the North Carolina Business Court.
The 8-K filing references…
Wallace & Graham, P.A. v. Jackson, December 16, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
In this case, the Court rejected the unopposed motion of the plaintiff to place the entire contents of a case which had been settled under seal.
The Court’s rationale ran like this:
- It is inconsistent with the North Carolina Public Records Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 132-1 to 132-10 (2007), to put everything in a
…
Watch Out For Soccer Balls, They Can Be Dangerous
All lawyers know, from first year torts class, that if you are hit by a baseball at a baseball game, you are unlikely to have any claim against the operator of the baseball stadium. There’s a well developed body of law to that effect.
Today in Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the rules of the game may be different when it’s a soccer game being played. The Allred case is apparently one of only three cases in the country that deals with injuries suffered by spectators from soccer balls kicked into the stands.
The Plaintiff in Allred was attending a women’s professional soccer game at State Capital Soccer Park in Cary, North Carolina. She was sitting in the stands behind one of the goals, and was hit in the head by a ball during warmups, when "many balls were directed towards the nets in a relatively short period of time." Op. at 4.. She suffered "substantial head injuries." Op. at 2.
The trial court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Plaintiff’s claim of negligence, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Judge Steelman began the unanimous opinion of the Court by observing that there were no reported cases in North Carolina involving injuries to spectators at soccer games, but that the cases involving baseball games "have been uniformly decided against the spectator, either on the basis that the stadium operator was not negligent or that the spectator assumed the risk of being hit by a baseball." Op. at 5.
The Court’s analysis then turned to two issues: the duty owned by the sports facility operator to the spectator, and whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk by attending the game.Continue Reading Watch Out For Soccer Balls, They Can Be Dangerous
Garrett v. Parton, December 15, 2008 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Court allowed a stay of discovery while it considered the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, stating that "a brief stay of discovery initiatives has the laudable potential of minmizing fees, expenses and the various costs of litigation for the parties in this matter. Such a stay is in the best interests of justice."
Metatags And Google AdWords Lead To Personal Jurisdiction In North Carolina Trademark Infringement Case
The Internet advertising activities of the Defendants, including the use by Defendants of Plaintiff’s trademark to generate "sponsored links" in a Google AdWords campaign and the use of the Plaintiff’s trademark in metatags, supported personal jurisdiction in an infringement action. The case, Market America v. Optihealth Products, Inc, was decided by Magistrate Judge…
North Carolina Supreme Court Finds Negligent Mispresentation Based On Multiple Listing Service Listing
The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals today in a case involving a claim of negligent misrepresentation over a realtor’s Multiple Listing Service (MLS) listing.
The Plaintiffs had purchased a home thinking it was connected to the city sewer system. That’s what the MLS listing said. That was wrong, the home actually had…
Should Your Clients Talk About Their Lawsuit On YouTube?
The Plaintiffs in Fisher v. Communications Workers of America, 2008 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2008), a pending Business Court case involving the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, are live and on YouTube, talking about their claims.
The Fisher case is the first court decision under the Act. It involves whether the…