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