This case involved plaintiffs who purchased lots in a North Carolina luxury subdivision and sued the developer defendants for failing to complete promised infrastructure, water/sewer systems, and amenities as required by the lot purchase agreements, asserting claims including fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of implied warranty, violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings based on mandatory arbitration clauses in the contracts. The court granted the motions to compel arbitration as to all defendants and stayed the action. It reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to the commerce-involved contracts, the arbitration provisions were valid and enforceable without being unconscionable, the disputes fell within the clause's scope, and non-signatory defendants could enforce arbitration through equitable estoppel because the claims arose directly from the agreements.
This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Precision Links against USA Products Group and Home Depot over a cargo tie-down strap covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,673,464, along with a state unfair trade practices claim. After the court construed the patent claims, the plaintiff conceded that the accused products fell outside the patent's scope, leading the court to enter summary judgment for the defendants on the infringement claim; the unfair trade practices count had already been dismissed earlier. The court granted the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, ruling the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because the plaintiff continued litigating after its claims were shown to be meritless, filed an untimely appeal to the Federal Circuit, and pursued additional motions in an attempt to revive that appeal, all of which unnecessarily increased the defendants' expenses.
In this ERISA case, the plaintiff sought long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan administered by Cigna after the insurer failed to respond to his administrative appeal. The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add North Carolina state-law claims for unfair claims settlement practices and unfair trade practices, but the court denied the motion on the ground that ERISA's civil enforcement scheme completely preempts such claims. The court also denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded the matter to the plan administrator for a decision on the appeal, holding that the administrator's failure to respond required further administrative proceedings rather than an award of benefits by the court.
The case involved plaintiffs who worked as house parents at a boarding school for troubled teens and claimed unpaid overtime wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), along with eleven supplemental claims under North Carolina law such as violations of the state Wage and Hour Act, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, conversion, emotional distress, and unfair trade practices, plus a demand for punitive damages. The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing the Second through Twelfth Causes of Action and the punitive damages demand while allowing the FLSA claim to proceed. The core reasoning was that the supplemental state claims failed to state viable causes of action, often because they were preempted by federal law or did not meet pleading standards under Twombly.
This case arose from a 2008 highway collision in North Carolina in which a distracted tractor-trailer driver struck a car, injuring the driver and passengers including two minors; the plaintiffs sued the manufacturers of an in-cab text-messaging system (Geologic Solutions and Xata) along with other defendants, alleging negligent design because the system permitted messages to be read while the vehicle was moving at highway speeds. The manufacturers moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the direct claims and related cross-claims for contribution and indemnification. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the motions, holding that the complaint failed to allege facts establishing any legal duty owed by the manufacturers to protect third parties from a driver’s inattentiveness and therefore did not state a viable product-liability claim under North Carolina law. The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and rejected arguments that the system’s design created foreseeable risks sufficient to impose liability.
This case involved a contract dispute between BernzOmatic and Worthington over a supply agreement for fuel cylinders, with BernzOmatic alleging breach of contract, Lanham Act violations for trade dress infringement and false advertising, and unfair trade practices, while Worthington counterclaimed for fraudulent inducement and breach. A jury found Worthington liable on the breach and Lanham Act claims and awarded over $12 million in damages to BernzOmatic. In this opinion, the court denied Worthington's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, finding the verdict supported by substantial evidence and certain arguments procedurally waived; it granted BernzOmatic's requests for a permanent injunction against further infringement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees related to the Lanham Act and Chapter 75 claims, while denying a mandatory product recall. The reasoning centered on the jury's findings, preservation requirements for post-verdict motions under Rule 50, and the need to prevent ongoing harm without evidence of widespread current infringement.