REPORT ON
ACTIVITIES
OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA
BUSINESS COURT
2000 TO 2001
I.
Introduction
II.
Executive Summary
III.
Description of
Business Court Program
IV.
Changes in 2000
A. Facility
B. Staff
V.
Benefits of
Business Court Technology
VI.
Case Load
A. List of Closed Cases
B. List of Active Cases
C. Venue
VII.
Opinions
A. List of Opinions
B. Appellate Review
C. Precedential Value
VIII.
Achievements
A. Foundation for Improvement of Justice Award
B. Rand Institute Study
C. Other
IX.
Replication of the
Business Court Program
X.
Funding
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 17.18 (b) of Session Law 1999-237 (see Exhibit A attached), the following is a report to the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees and the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety on the activities of the North Carolina Business Court, including the number of cases heard by the Court and the number of court sessions held outside of Superior Court District 18.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary Statement:
During the period from April 1, 2000 to present, the North Carolina Business Court has continued to expand its case load. The Court has been involved in 129 cases assigned from 25 counties. Of sixty-six closed cases, forty-six settled. Of the sixty-three cases currently being handled by the Business Court, seven are on appeal, three have reached a settlement and two are stayed. Ten of the active cases are class action suits involving numerous class members and common, often complex, issues.
This report will describe the Business Court program, identify problems addressed by its innovative use of technology and cite achievements attained during the past year. It will also identify the current and potential beneficiaries of the Business Court and its technology and demonstrate how elements of this system could be replicated in other districts that could benefit from specialized courts for complex litigation.
To illustrate the number and scope of Business Court cases, the report includes lists of closed and current cases with counties of origin and disposition or status, a State map depicting counties from which Business Court cases have been assigned, and a list of opinions issued by the Court. The Business Court’s use of technology, including the development of a paperless court through the electronic filing of documents, enhanced courtroom presentation equipment, videoconferencing capability, and public access to the Court calendar, docket, case file, and court opinions via the Internet, are all detailed in the following pages.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS COURT PROGRAM
Established in 1996, the North Carolina Business Court is a national
forerunner in the establishment of specialized courts for complex litigation
and the implementation of “state of the art” computer technology. It provides the legal community and the
court system with automated resources that will promote faster, more efficient
and more economical judicial management of litigation. The Court is pioneering the use of
automation concepts that greatly reduce the load of document processing and
case management for civil litigation.
The use and design of the programs in this facility are tailored to
provide an ongoing research arena for the technology needed in the courts of
North Carolina and other jurisdictions.
The Court’s website is found at www.ncbusinesscourt.net
and a PowerPoint presentation on the Court’s capabilities can be accessed at www.ncbusinesscourt.net/ftp/ncbn.zip.
The development of court technology for electronic filing has been an integral part of the Business Court’s plan of operation, and its expansion has resulted in a system which offers free public access to Court files, docket and calendar over the Internet, instant access to all Court opinions without the expense or delay of publication, an electronic library accessible by the Court from remote locations, and advantages to counsel afforded not only by electronic filing but also through the opportunity to use advanced courtroom equipment and technology during the course of hearings and trial. The Business Court is the first court to seamlessly integrate electronic filing and advanced courtroom technology, permitting use of electronically filed documents and exhibits in the courtroom.
Employment of this technology releases court staff to perform higher value added work and eliminates positions devoted to handling paper. For judges, it permits incorporation of new tools that facilitate efficient and economical use of judicial resources; jury instruction tools and file portability are two examples.
The system is also uniquely designed to level the playing field for use of technology in the courtroom. By providing an easy to use touch-screen system to operate all equipment and common formats for document entry, the system insures that all parties have equal access to the technology regardless of their resources.
IV. CHANGES IN 2000
A.
Facility
The 2000 session of the General Assembly provided the funds to extend the facility lease for one additional year and the necessary funds to complete the technology pilot program. The building has recently been purchased by Lomax Construction Company, an entity that has been involved in other renovation projects in downtown Greensboro; the company has publicly stated plans for extensive improvement to the building.
B.
Judge and Staff
The
Business Court judge and staff have remained the same with the exception of a
new law clerk who began work in August 2000.
Judge
Tennille graduated from the University of North Carolina School of Law with
honors in 1971. He was a member of the North Carolina Law Review and Order of
the Coif. He was in private law practice from 1971 until 1985 with a major
North Carolina law firm, gaining experience in both business law and
litigation. In 1985 he joined the in
house legal department of a Fortune 500 company as Associate General Counsel
and Assistant Secretary and managed the litigation for that company for eight
years. He served that company in a business capacity for two years,
specializing in human resources, and attended executive education programs at
the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan business
schools. He brings to the bench a broad background in business law and
litigation.
Lisa Bartle,
the current law clerk, graduated from Guilford College with a bachelor of
science degree in accounting, followed by a master of business administration
degree from Wake Forest’s Babcock Graduate School of Management and a law
degree from Wake Forest University School of Law in 2000.
Julie
Holmes is serving as the administrative assistant to the North Carolina
Business Court. She has a bachelor’s
degree with a double major in English and French from Furman University and
received paralegal certification with emphasis on corporate law from the
National Center of Paralegal Training, an A.B.A.-approved program in Atlanta,
Georgia.
V. BENEFITS OF BUSINESS COURT TECHNOLOGY
All segments of the court system benefit from the use of technology within the business court program. The Clerk’s office is run far more efficiently and economically by elimination of the necessity to handle paper. Clerks can do more value added work. Storage costs are reduced. Case management is simplified, and access to valuable statistical data is available at the click of a mouse.
Lawyers and their clients save significantly in duplicating, service and storage costs. Time required in the litigation process is shortened and communication between the Court and counsel is expedited. Videoconferencing can substantially reduce expenses. Lawyers may access the Court twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Judges benefit from a broad range of tools, including advanced research capabilities, file portability, quick prep for jury instructions, videoconferencing and case management capabilities, online communication between courtroom and clerk’s office, and generation of frequently used forms.
Clients have their costs reduced because both lawyers and courts are operating more efficiently.
Jurors profit from the use of the advanced courtroom technology, which speeds trials and provides communication tools for making more effective presentations.
The public is the biggest beneficiary. Court costs are reduced and the public has constant free access to court files without going to the courthouse.
VI. CASE LOAD
Procedure
Under
Rule 2.1, the Chief Justice may designate any case [or group of cases] as
complex business. The Rule provides that a senior resident superior court
judge, chief district court judge, or presiding superior court judge may ex mero motu, or on motion of a party,
recommend to the Chief Justice that a case or cases be designated as complex
business. Thus, the procedure for initial designation as complex business does
not differ from the procedure for having cases designated as exceptional.
However, once a case is designated as complex business, it is automatically
assigned to a Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases. In this
respect the procedure differs from previous practice for exceptional cases in
that heretofore the parties had generally agreed upon a superior court judge to
hear the case as exceptional and secured his or her prior agreement to handle
the case. That flexibility is not available with the complex business
designation. Also, the Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases
must write an opinion upon final disposition of the case. Once a case is designated
as complex business, it stays with the business court for all purposes,
including trial.
All
cases will be tried in the county in which the case is filed unless venue is
changed by agreement of the parties or in accordance with the General Statutes
and Rules of Civil Procedure. Pretrial matters may be handled out of the county
or district. The process for appeals
from a decision of the Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases
does not differ from appeals from other superior court orders and judgments.
In
creating a business court, North Carolina has joined the states of Delaware,
New York and Illinois in recognizing the need for specialization in complex
business litigation. The American Bar Association has recommended that all
states adopt some form of business court.
The great burden placed upon state and federal judges by increasing
criminal caseloads, combined with a growing need for fast answers in complex
business disputes in today’s rapidly moving commercial and technological environment,
make such courts a necessity. North Carolina has taken a leading role in
development of the business court concept.
Maryland and Michigan have just announced creation of special courts for
complex business and technology cases, and California is conducting a pilot
program for complex litigation courts.
A.
List Of Closed Cases
The following list shows the 66 closed cases handled to date by the Business Court. Of these cases, 52 settled, five of which settled after Court Opinion; one settled during trial; and one settled after jury trial. There were 11 judgments, three of which were affirmed on appeal; one case was stayed, one remanded, and one voluntarily dismissed.
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
Adams Farm v. Smith |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 9499 |
Settled |
|
|
Adams Outdoor Ltd Partner -ship v. City of Charlotte |
Mecklenburg County |
88 CVS 9786 |
Settled |
|
|
Amos v. Southern
Furniture Exhibit Building |
Guilford County |
96 CVS 4958 |
Settled |
|
|
Beam v. Worldway |
Mecklenburg County |
96 CVS 469 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Beaty v. Integon Corp. |
Mecklenburg County |
99 CVS 11540 |
Vol. Dismissal |
|
|
Bell, Setzer, Park and Gibson PA v. Meyers |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 9957 |
Settled |
|
|
Bd of Govnrs v. Cushman |
Orange County |
97 CVS 1429 |
Settled |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Bradley v. US Packaging |
Guilford County |
95 CVS 8986 |
Judgment |
|
|
Byers v. Carpenter |
Wake County |
94 CVS 04489 |
Settled |
|
|
Carolina Custom v. Tiffany Marble v. Howard Butner v. Rudy Hoch |
Guilford County |
96 CVS-6511 97 CVS-6598 97 CVS-6998 99 CVS-3100 |
Settled |
|
|
Case Farms v. New Hope Feeds |
Burke County |
96 CVS 309 |
Settled |
|
|
Charlotte Copy Data v. Habbal |
Mecklenburg County |
96 CVS 694 |
Judgment |
|
|
ChemiMetals v. McEneny |
Mecklenburg County |
95 CVS 10817 |
Settled during Jury Trial |
|
|
Clark v. Holland |
Wake County |
96 CVS 5829 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Coastal Physician Group v. Price Waterhouse |
Durham County |
99 CVS 0578 |
Settled |
|
|
Continuum Care v. Eakes Corp. |
Warren County |
96 CVS 1465 |
Settled |
|
|
Crowder Construction v. Kiser |
Mecklenburg County |
95 CvS 14097 |
Judgment |
|
|
DCC Classics v. Robert Craig & RePac |
Forsyth County |
97 CVS 2856 |
Stayed |
|
|
DeJoy v. DeJoy |
Guilford County |
99 CVS 1245 |
Settled |
|
|
Exide Corp. Branches v. Keever |
Caldwell County |
95 CVS 978 |
Settled |
|
|
Faulkner v. Tarheel Holdings |
Lenoir County |
96 CVS 281 |
Settled |
|
|
Filipowski v. High Point Bank & Trust |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 9317 |
Settled |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Frazier v. Beard |
Catawba County |
94 CVS 2362 |
Judgment |
|
|
Gaafar v. Piedmont Poultry |
Wake County |
96 CVS 630 |
Settled |
|
|
Giduz v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina |
Orange County |
97 CVS 917 |
Judgment On Appeal |
|
|
Goings v. P.M. Mattress |
Randolph County |
92 CVS 785 |
Settled |
|
|
Grossman v. Carolina Drug Inc. |
Guilford County |
95 CVS 8921 95 CVS 9834 |
Settled |
|
|
Greene v. Shoemaker and Community BancShares, Inc. |
Wilkes County |
97 CVS 2118 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Griffin & Griffin Construction Co. v. Carolina Tel & Tel Co. |
Cumberland County |
99 CVS 7705 |
Settled |
|
|
Hafele America Co. v. Ergonomix Armdec Pty. Ltd. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 7426 |
Settled |
|
|
Harbor Finance Partners v. PCA International, Ltd. |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 5734 |
Settlement Pending |
|
|
Igar v. Mark Mfg. Co. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 10198 |
Settled |
|
|
Jeffcoat v. Chicago Rawhide |
Gaston County |
95 CVS 4176 |
Settled |
|
|
LaFar v. LaFar |
Gaston County |
98 CVS 5006 |
Settled |
|
|
Lapedes v. Glaxo Wellcome |
Wake County |
98 CVS 12106 |
Settled |
|
|
Lennon and Magruder v. MedCath, Inc. |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 14327 |
Settled |
|
|
Long v. Abbott Labs |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 8289 |
Judgment |
|
|
Lupton v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC |
Orange County |
98 CVS 633 |
Judgment Affirmed COA |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Melbourne-Marsh v. North Hills, Inc.. |
Wake County |
97 CVS 3212 |
Settled |
|
|
Metric–Kvaerner of Fayetteville v. Bank of Tokyo - Mitsubishi, Ltd. v. Kvaerner Investments |
Bladen County |
97 CVS 743 |
Settled |
|
|
Montrose Value Fund v. Freeman |
Durham County |
96 CVS 1220 |
Settled |
|
|
Moore. v. NationsBank, N.A. |
Mecklenburg County |
99 CVS 1585 |
Settlement Pending |
|
|
New Breed, Inc. v. DeJoy |
Guilford County |
00 CVS 3751 |
Settled |
|
|
Newbury & Molinare v. Broadway & Seymour |
Forsyth County |
96 CVS 4614 |
Settled after Jury Trial |
|
|
Petty v. High Point Bank & Trust |
Randolph County |
97 CVS 741 |
Settled |
|
|
Popkin v. Popkin |
Onslow County |
92 CVS 2910 |
Settled |
|
|
Reeve v. Triad Bank |
Guilford County |
96 CVS 4695 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Roberts v. Guy, Onslow Transit |
Onslow County |
93 CVS 1043 |
Settled |
|
|
Robinson v. McMillen Trust |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 9042 |
Settled |
|
|
Royals v. Glenaco |
Guilford County |
98 CVS 153 |
Settled |
|
|
Royals v. Piedmont Electric Repair Co. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 720 |
Judgment Affirmed COA 99609 Cert denied |
|
|
Sayer v. State Street |
Guilford County |
96 CVS 6478 |
Settled |
|
|
Scott v. Sokolov |
Durham County |
96 CVS 2748 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Shelley v. Cooper |
Gaston County |
98 CVS 1244 |
Settled |
|
|
Smith v. NC Motor Speedway, Inc. |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 138 |
Judgment |
|
|
Southern Furniture Hardware v. BB&T |
Catawba County |
94 CVS 959 |
Remanded |
|
|
Springer-Eubank v. Four County Electric Membership Corp. |
New Hanover County |
98 CVS 3194 |
Judgment Affirmed COA |
|
|
Thomas v. Golding Farms |
Guilford County |
95 CVS 7323 |
Settled |
|
|
WestPoint Stevens, Inc. v. Panda-Rosemary Corp. |
Guilford County |
99 CVS 9818 |
Judgment |
|
|
Wiggins v. Charlotte Brewing Co. |
Mecklenburg County |
96 CVS 2537 |
Settled |
|
|
Whitley v. Wallace |
Rowan County |
96 CVS 1795 |
Settled |
|
|
Wilson Realty and Construction, Inc. v. Asheboro-Randolph Board of Realtors |
Randolph County |
95 CVS 0482 |
Settled |
|
B. List of Current Cases
The following list shows the 63 cases that are currently being handled by the Business Court. Of these cases, 44 are active; seven are on appeal, one of which is on appeal after jury trial; four have reached a settlement; and two are stayed. One case is awaiting decision after a non-jury trial; one is partially settled; one is in mediation; six have an ongoing jury trial and one has a jury trial pending.
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Status of Case |
|
|
|
Biemann and Rowell v. The Donohoe Companies |
Orange County |
99 CVS 9132 |
On Appeal after Non-Jury Trial |
|
|
|
Bruggers v. Eastman Kodak Company |
Wake County |
97 CVS 1278 |
Awaiting Settlement Agreement |
|
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Status of Case |
|
|
|
Caraustar Industries v. Georgia-Pacific |
Mecklenburg County |
00 CVS 12302 |
Active |
|
|
|
Cogburn v. Electrics of Asheville |
Buncombe County |
00 CVS 2254 |
Active |
|
|
|
Dilworth Heights v. The Boulevard Co. |
Mecklenburg County |
99 CVS 11552 |
Active |
|
|
|
DKH Corp. v. Rankin Patterson Oil Co. |
Buncombe County |
95 CVS 2511 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Dublin v. UCR |
Johnston County |
90 CVS 0304 |
Stayed |
|
|
|
Ezzell v. ABT Co., Inc |
Onslow County |
97 CVS 167 |
Stayed |
||
|
First Union Corp. v. Gulf Ins. |
Mecklenburg County |
00 CVS 3558 |
Active |
|
|
|
Garlock v. Hilliard |
Mecklenburg County |
00 CVS 1018 |
Active |
|
|
|
Gaynoe v. First Union Corp. |
Mcklenburg County |
00 CVS 1018 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Hinson v. Trigon Healthcare |
Cumberland County |
00 CVS 4612 |
Active |
|
|
|
In Re Delhaize America |
Mecklenburg County |
00 CVS 13706 |
Active |
||
|
Isasi v. FYI &nb | |||||