In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant law firm had failed to comply with "standards established by the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the North Carolina State Bar."  The Court granted a Motion to Strike with regard to this language, observing that "the Rules of Professional Conduct of the North

Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing Defendant from selling its assets in North Carolina.  The Motion was filed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-485, which permits an injunction when "the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud the plaintiff." 

The Court denied the injunction, finding that it

The Business Court denied the Defendant’s request to amend its Answer to add a statute of limitations defense and a defense of ERISA preemption.  Judge Tennille found that the Defendant had unduly delayed by raising the statute of limitations defense fourteen months after the filing of its Answer, and that the Plaintiff would be prejudiced if it

The Business Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that he had been dismissed from his employment in violation of the public policy of North Carolina. 

Plaintiff, a doctor who had been employed by the Defendant medical practice, alleged that he had been forced to resign his employment while he was disabled and seeking medical treatment.  He asserted that

Although Plaintiff’s claims were timely against the insurance agent they claimed had defrauded them, those claims were not timely against the agent’s employer.  The agent had terminated his relationship with his employer several years before the lawsuit was filed.  Although the statute did not run against the agent, because the alleged fraud continued, the Court