Albert S. Thomas

This case was a wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice, in which the plaintiff obtained an extension of the two-year statute of limitations under the pre-amendment version of Rule 9(j) from a non-resident superior court judge assigned to the county and then filed the complaint within the extended period. The trial court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the suit, finding the extension invalid because Rule 9(j) required action by a resident judge of the county where the cause arose. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-47 confers on an assigned non-resident judge the same powers as a resident judge for purposes of the extension motion, that the complaint was therefore timely, and that one superior court judge may not overrule the order of another in the same action.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In this case, two companies that operated video game arcades sued the City of Kings Mountain after it amended its zoning ordinance to restrict the location, design, and use of video gaming machines, requiring nonconforming arcades to obtain conditional use permits or cease operations after a six-month grace period. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the amendment and moved for a preliminary injunction, which the trial court denied on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, holding that the order did not affect a substantial right because the ordinance was not yet in effect when the motion was heard, the plaintiffs could continue operating their businesses with limits on video machines, and no deprivation of a vested right or other substantial interest would occur before final judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved homeowners who purchased a newly constructed house and later signed a limited warranty agreement containing an arbitration clause; they sued the builder for breach of implied and express warranties, misrepresentations, and related claims arising from alleged construction defects. The trial court denied the builder's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the claims did not arise under the warranty agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that the arbitration provision applied because the claims were connected to rights and obligations under the agreement and arbitration was a condition precedent to litigation. The court found the agreement's language encompassed the disputes despite arguments that some claims predated the warranty or involved implied rights independent of it.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a social worker employed by the Lenoir County Department of Social Services who was dismissed after unauthorized absences from work, which the agency treated as a voluntary resignation without notice under state personnel rules. She appealed the dismissal through administrative channels, alleging due process violations, bias by the decision-maker, use of matters outside the record, and arbitrary or erroneous decisions, and sought reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's order upholding the termination, reasoning that the plaintiff had not assigned error to or argued key jurisdictional issues decided against her below, which were sufficient to bar her claims, and that her remaining assignments of error lacked merit.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved multiple plaintiffs, including river associations, riverkeepers, recreational users, riparian landowners, and commercial users, who sued hog farming companies and their officers for improper handling of swine waste that allegedly polluted the Neuse, New, and Cape Fear Rivers. The plaintiffs sought a court-approved trust to fund full remediation of the waterways and an injunction prohibiting the use of swine lagoons and sprayfields, but they did not seek individual compensation. The trial court dismissed the claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the individualized injury required for standing and that only the state, through the Attorney General, may pursue non-individualized public remedies for harm to public trust waters under the public trust doctrine.

environmentprocedure

In State v. Diaz, defendants Ruben Aburto Diaz and Jose Juan Espinoza Lopez appealed their convictions for trafficking in cocaine by possessing over 400 grams, possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, for which each received sentences of 175 to 219 months in prison. The case arose from a police investigation triggered by a confidential tip, leading to surveillance at a Greensboro motel, recovery of drug-related items from trash, discovery of multiple kilograms of cocaine, and arrests of the defendants and co-conspirators. The North Carolina Court of Appeals applied the substantial evidence standard to review the denial of motions to dismiss and concluded that the evidence, including the defendants' involvement in transporting, storing, and discussing the sale of the cocaine, was sufficient to support each element of the charged offenses and identify the defendants as perpetrators. The court therefore found no error and upheld the convictions.

criminal law