McKinney & Tallant, P.A. by Zeyland G. McKinney, Jr. for Plaintiff Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated.

Similar documents
Zloop, Inc. v. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, 2018 NCBC 39.

Krawiec v. Manly, 2015 NCBC 82.

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 May Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 19 April 2006 by Judge

Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Ann-Patton Hornthal, Wyatt S. Stevens, Stephen L. Cash, and John D. Noor, for Defendants Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of

AP Atl., Inc. v. Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC, 2017 NCBC 48.

Don t Let This Happen To You:

Tuggle Duggins P.A. by Denis E. Jacobson, Jeffrey S. Southerland, and Alan B. Felts for Plaintiff Kingsdown, Incorporated.

Blanco, Tackabery & Matamoros, P.A., by Peter J. Juran, for Plaintiff Progress Builders, LLC.

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION DURHAM COUNTY 05 CVS 679

Ellis & Winters, LLP, by Paul K. Sun and Kelly Margolis Dagger, for Plaintiffs AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and AmeriGas Propane, Inc.

NO. COA13-43 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 16 January 2018

Case 0:13-cv JIC Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Motion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion

1. THIS MATTER is before the Court on James Mark McDaniel, Jr. s. ( McDaniel ) Rule 59 Motion to Reconsider Order Granting the Receiver s Request to

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 February 2013

Plaintiffs, SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW H. MALL. The Affiant, Matthew H. Mall, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

Case 2:16-cv SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS *************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) From Wilkes ) AMANDA LEA ROSE )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COMES Plaintiff LegalZoom.Com, Inc., pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the

Sethi v Singh 2011 NY Slip Op 33814(U) July 18, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 4958/11 Judge: Howard G. Lane Cases posted with a "30000"

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 October 2015

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) {1} Before the Court is the Motion of non-party National Western Life Insurance Company

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 July 2014

- 1 - DISTRICT 29A NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS ***************************************** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 May 2015

Carolina Law Partners by Sophia Harvey for Plaintiffs.

McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC by John E. Spainhour for Defendant American Express Company, Inc.

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 January 2011

Jones Childers McLurkin & Donaldson PLLC, by Mark L. Childers, for Defendant Donald Phillip Smith, Jr.

The Murky Waters between Small Claims and Civil District Court

Gvest Real Estate, LLC v. JS Real Estate Invs. LLC, 2017 NCBC 31.

Better Bus. Forms & Prods., Inc. v. Craver, 2007 NCBC 34 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Alliance Bank & Trust Company ( Alliance Bank ) ( First Motion to Compel ); Plaintiffs

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 JEANNE ELLIS SAMIRA JONES

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 September v. New Hanover County Nos. 11 CVM 1575 JOHN MUNN, 11 CVM 1576 Defendant.

14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 12 CVS 7600 MECKLENBURG COUNTY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMES NOW Defendant Blue Ridge Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A. ( BRBJ ), pursuant to Rule

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Gaylor, Inc. of N.C. v. Vizor, LLC, 2015 NCBC 98.

Corporations - The Effect of Unanimous Approval on Corporate Bylaws

PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Simply the Best Movers, LLC v. Marrins Moving Sys., Ltd NCBC 28. SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 15 CVS 7065

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No WDA 2014

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 May 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:14-cv JAG Document 193 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 4730 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Case Doc 395 Filed 02/21/17 Entered 02/21/17 17:11:37 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8

Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC by Mark R. Kutny and Jackson N. Steele for Plaintiff Signalife, Inc.

STATE COURT APPEAL CRASH COURSE

Case 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258

Case 2:06-cv R-CW Document 437 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:7705

THIS CAUSE came on before the undersigned Superior Court Judge on the Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSICA CESTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

*(CONSOLIDATED INTO 3951)* Docket Number: TO1 CONTACT CENTERS, INC. Jeffrey J. Reich, Esquire James W Kutz, Esquire VS.

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the

Case 1:09-cv RB-RHS Document 139 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

Case Doc 83 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION

Pakootas, Donald R. Michel, and State of Washington,

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February Appeal by respondents from order entered 8 August 2013 by

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Majestic Transport, Inc., Enrique Urquilla, and Janeth Bermudez s ( Defendants ) Rule 37 Motion for

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Erwin, Bishop, Capitano & Moss, P.A., by Joseph W. Moss, Jr. and J. Daniel Bishop, for Plaintiff TaiDoc Technology Corporation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA. vs. Case No: ORDER ESTABLISHING MOTION PRACTICE PROCEDURE

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 March Appeal by Defendant from order entered 29 April 2013 by

Case 1:06-cv SLR Document 12 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:10-cv FJS Document 24 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUSAN DOHERTY and DWIGHT SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. l:10-cv nlh-kmw

Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 214 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 04 CVS 11289

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 3:75-CR-26-F No. 5:06-CV-24-F

[QIJ$&J ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Appeal by defendant from order entered 15 July 2010 by

Case 2:17-cv GAM Document 56 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 May 2011

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 133 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5

CAUSE NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS. CANDICE SCHWAGER, Pro Se Appellant

vs. ) Case No. CIV Pursuant to [insert Settlement Act citation] (hereinafter the Settlement Act ),

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 5:09-CT D ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC by John E. Spainhour for Defendant American Express Co.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc. ( WMC ) files this memorandum of

DISTRICT COURT DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016

Effective September 1, 2018 TABLE OF RULES II. TRANSFER TO ARBITRATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ARBITRATOR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 October 2014

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 March 2014

Transcription:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GRAHAM COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 11 CVS 53 PHILLIPS AND JORDAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY L. BOSTIC, MICHAEL HARTNETT and JOSEPH E. BOSTIC, JR., ORDER AND OPINION DISMISSING APPEAL Defendants. {1} THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants Jeffrey L. Bostic and Michael Hartnett s (collectively Defendants ) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Appeal (the Motion ) in the above-captioned case. Having considered the Motion and the briefs and exhibits filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Appeal. 1 McKinney & Tallant, P.A. by Zeyland G. McKinney, Jr. for Plaintiff Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated. Nexsen Pruet, PLLC by David S. Pokela and Christine L. Myatt for Defendant Jeffrey L. Bostic. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP by D. Erik Albright and Matthew Nis Leerberg for Defendant Michael Hartnett. Bledsoe, Judge. {2} Plaintiff filed this action on April 1, 2011 in Graham County Superior Court alleging claims for constructive fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices against Defendants Melvin Morris and Jeffrey Bostic and for aiding and 1 Pursuant to BCR 15.4(a), the Court has, in its discretion, elected not to hold a hearing on the Motion and instead decides the Motion based on the papers presented. See BCR 15.4(a) ( Motions shall be considered [on the papers] without hearing or oral argument absent special circumstances).

abetting constructive fraud against Defendants Tyler Morris, Michael Hartnett and Joseph E. Bostic, Jr. The case was designated as a complex business case and assigned to this Court (Murphy, J.) on May 5, 2011. {3} On June 1, 2012, this Court (Murphy, J.) entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff s claims for aiding and abetting constructive fraud against Defendants Tyler Morris, Joseph E. Bostic, Jr., and Michael Hartnett and Plaintiff s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices against all Defendants (the 2012 Order ). On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff dismissed the claim for constructive fraud against Defendant Melvin Morris with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, this Court (Murphy, J.) entered an Order and Opinion dismissing the single remaining claim asserted against Defendant Jeffrey Bostic (the 2014 Order ). As a result, the 2014 Order resolved the only claim against the last remaining defendant in this action and therefore constituted a final judgment under Rule 54 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361 62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) ( A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. ). {4} The Court notified the parties of the entry of the 2014 Order by sending an electronic Notice of Entry of the 2014 Order to all parties on May 12, 2014 as permitted under Rule 6.11 of the Business Court Rules ( BCR ). The 2014 Order was thereafter filed with the Graham County Clerk of Superior Court on May 16, 2014. The filing of the 2014 Order with the Graham County Clerk of Superior 2

Court constituted the entry of final judgment in this case thereby permitting appeal of the 2012 and 2014 Orders to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. {5} Under Rule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff as a party entitled by law to appeal from a judgment or order of a superior or district court rendered in a civil action could take appeal by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies upon all other parties within... thirty days after entry of judgment.... N.C.R.A.P. 3(a) and 3(c). Accordingly, to timely appeal the 2012 and 2014 Orders, Plaintiff was required to file its notice of appeal with the Graham County Clerk of Superior Court no later than Monday, June 16, 2014, which was thirty days after the May 16, 2014 entry of final judgment in Graham County. {6} On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff electronically filed and mailed to all parties a document titled Notice of Appeal (Appeals from Two Separate Orders) (the Notice of Appeal ) purporting to appeal the 2012 and 2014 Orders. Plaintiff, however, did not file the Notice of Appeal with the Graham County Clerk of Superior Court until August 11, 2014. {7} Although mandating an admittedly harsh result, North Carolina law is clear that Plaintiff s failure to file the Notice of Appeal with the Graham County Clerk of Superior Court within the time prescribed under N.C. R. App. P. Rule 3 requires dismissal of Plaintiff s appeal. See, e.g., Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 156, 540 S.E.2d 313, 322 (2000) ( The provisions of Rule 3 are jurisdictional, and failure to follow the rule s prerequisites mandates dismissal of an appeal. ); Currin- 3

Dillehay Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. Frazier, 100 N.C. App. 188, 189, 394 S.E.2d 683, 684 (1990) ( [I]f the requirements of [Rule 3] are not complied with, the appeal must be dismissed. ). Plaintiff s timely electronic filing with the Business Court does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3. See Ehrenhaus v. Baker, 2014 NCBC 30 10 11 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 16, 2014), www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions/ 2014_NCBC_30.pdf (dismissing appeal as untimely where plaintiff timely filed notice of appeal electronically with the Business Court but failed to timely file notice of appeal with the clerk of court in the county of venue). {8} Plaintiff attempts to avoid dismissal by arguing that the 2014 Order was never served as required under Rule 58 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Business Court Rules, however, expressly provide that electronic Notice of Entry constitutes service under Rule 58, see BCR 6.11 ( [t]ransmission of such Notice of Entry shall constitute service pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 58 ), and Plaintiff stipulated to electronic service under BCR 6 as reflected in the Court s Case Management Order in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff admits it had actual notice of the 2014 Order upon its entry on May 12, 2014, and the North Carolina courts have consistently held that actual notice of the entry of a final judgment or order within three days of its entry triggers the commencement of the thirty-day appeal period under Rule 3. See, e.g., Magazian v. Creagh, 759 S.E.2d 130 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) ( [W]hen a party receives actual notice that a judgment has been entered, the service requirements of Rule 3(c) are not applicable, and actual notice substitutes for proper service. ); Huebner v. Triangle Research Collaborative, 193 4

N.C. App. 420, 425, 667 S.E.2d 309, 312 (2008) (dismissing appeal as untimely where Rule 58 service did not occur but the record clearly indicates that an appellant ha[d] actual notice of the entry of judgment and its content ). As a result, Plaintiff s arguments under N.C. R. Civ. P. Rule 58 are without merit. {9} Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not timely file its Notice of Appeal with the Graham County Clerk of Superior Court as required under Rule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, and therefore Plaintiff s appeal must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Appeal, and Plaintiff s appeal is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of October 2014. /s/ Louis A. Bledsoe, III Louis A. Bledsoe, III Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases 5