REPORT ON
ACTIVITIES
OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA
BUSINESS COURT
1996 TO 2000
I.
Introduction
III.
Origin
IV.
Changes in 1999
A. Facility
B. Staff
C. Technology Pilot Program
A. List of Closed Cases
B. List of Active Cases
C. Venue
VI.
Opinions
A. List of Opinions
B. Appellate Review
C. Precedential Value
VII.
Development of
Technology
A. Paperless Court and E-Filing
B. Courtroom Presentation and Videoconferencing
C. Uses of Technology by Other Courts
VIII.
Funding
History
IX. Conclusion
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.
Summary Statement:
During the five years since its inception, and most particularly during the past year, the business court in North Carolina has undergone dramatic changes. The Court has been involved in eighty-two cases assigned from twenty-two counties. Of forty-six closed cases, thirty-nine settled. Of the thirty-six cases currently being handled by the Business Court, nine are on appeal, four have reached a settlement and three are stayed. Ten of the active cases are class action suits involving numerous class members and common, often complex, issues.
This report will review the legislative origin and development of the business court concept and the history of its operation in North Carolina. Central to an understanding of the Business Court is an explanation of the assignment of cases to the Court, clarification of the terms “complex business” and “exceptional” and a detailed explication of benefits which the creation of the Business Court offers to the state superior court system. The description of the current facility includes the staff and the acquisition of court and office equipment and furnishings, both of which were important to the development of a progressive court technology pilot program.
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.
The North Carolina Commission on Business
Laws and the Economy (the “Commission”) was established by Governor Hunt in
April 1994 and charged with recommending “any needed changes in existing statutes
and regulations which affect the operation of businesses in North
Carolina.” With particular focus given
to Chapter 55 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Commission was to
recommend any needed new statutes, rules, and regulations designed to assure
that North Carolina offers a legal environment providing the flexibility and
support to allow businesses to operate successfully in this state and to
attract businesses to locate and incorporate here.
The goals for the establishment of a business court for this state, set forth in a report issued by the Commission in January 1995, are several. First is the creation of a specialized court where complex business cases can be managed outside the current rotation system. Second is development of a court similar to the Delaware Chancery Court in which expertise in corporate law issues can be advanced. Third is a forum in which complex business cases can be tried expeditiously. Fourth is a trial court that produces opinions on corporate and business law issues in order to create a body of case law for guidance on those issues.
To meet those specifications, the
Commission recommended that the North Carolina Supreme Court amend the
Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts rather than initiate
these changes through the legislative process.
Accordingly, Rule 2.1 was
amended to allow the Chief Justice to designate certain cases as complex
business cases, and Rule 2.2 was adopted to allow the Chief Justice to
designate one or more special superior court judges to hear those special
cases. Any judge so designated would be known as a Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases and would be required to write opinions in
designated cases.
The Rule did not
define a “complex business case” and left it to trial level judges to recommend
cases to the Chief Justice for designation as complex business. In any case assigned as a complex business
case, the judge is required by rule to write an opinion. The Commission recommended that the Governor
appoint at least one expert in corporate law to be designated by the Chief
Justice to hear complex business cases. In the fall of 1995,
the legislature appropriated the funds for an additional special superior court
judge for a five-year term. In January
of 1996, Governor Hunt appointed Ben F. Tennille as a Special Superior Court
Judge and Chief Justice Mitchell designated him as North Carolina’s first
Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases.
The Legislature was asked only to approve funding for the addition of another Special Superior Court Judge. No legislation was enacted to create a court separate from the Superior Court.
During the 1996 and 1997 sessions of the General Assembly, no additional funding was provided for the Business Court. Judge Tennille worked from a home office for a time, then was temporarily supplied with an office in the Guilford County Courthouse in High Point. The absence of staff and permanent facilities made it difficult to take on a large number of cases requiring a written opinion, so the caseload fluctuated between too heavy and too light. The lack of a clear jurisdiction or definition of a “complex business case” also contributed to the fluctuating caseload. Many of the cases assigned to the Business Court have been assigned as regular Rule 2.1 “exceptional” cases, not as complex business cases. The 1997 and 1998 legislative sessions appropriated funds for secretarial help, but no arrangements were made for facilities, furniture or equipment for a judge or staff.
Thus, for the first three years of the Court’s existence, the Court operated without a permanent home or staff. During this period Judge Tennille realized the necessity for and benefit which could be derived from the use of technology by the Business Court. Funds were raised from private foundations to pay for equipment; the lack of facilities and staff, however, made realization of the project impossible.
A.
Facility
A temporary solution for housing the facility was funded by the Joseph M. Bryan Foundation, a private foundation. The North Carolina Business Court took occupancy of the second floor of 200 South Elm Street in Greensboro on March 5, 1999. The foundation provided funding for the Business Court’s first year lease for 3,800 square feet of office space and courtroom space in the Meyer’s Building, originally a department store that was a familiar landmark in downtown Greensboro. This structure most recently housed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The layout of this space and its previous function as a courtroom and judge’s chambers offered the distinct advantage of substantial savings in renovation costs as well as a strategic location in close proximity to the Guilford County Courthouse.
In addition to the courtroom, the space includes three offices, a jury/library/conference room and a copy room/break room. The equipment and furnishings for the office work area and the courtroom have been purchased, as well as most of the technological equipment for the courtroom. Private foundations paid for the furnishings for this space. Grants from a number of foundations, including the North Carolina Bar Association, have supported technology in the facility. The Administrative Office of the Courts’ Purchasing and Information Services departments have also provided commendable support for the purchase and installation of equipment and library materials. Details of expenditures and sources of funds are provided later in this report.
The 1999 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.
B.
Judge and Staff
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.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has classified the two staff positions approved by the General Assembly such that the Business Court has an administrative assistant and a position for a law clerk, called a business court coordinator. Both positions have been filled, and both staff members are proving to be valuable assets for the docket management and research essential to the fulfillment of the Court’s purposes.
Sabra
Engelbrecht, the current law clerk, graduated from the University of Kansas with
a bachelor’s degree in psychology, followed by a law degree from Wake Forest
University School of Law in 1999. She
has been published (“The Importance of Clarifying North Carolina’s Corporate
Practice of Medicine Doctrine,” Wake
Forest Law Review) and also served as a senior editor of the Review.
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.
C. Technology
Pilot Program
Once office space and a dedicated
courtroom became available, the Business Court embarked upon a pilot project to
explore the uses of advanced technology to create a paperless court. This project is described in detail in
Section VII below.
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.
Definition
of a Complex Business Case
The Supreme Court purposefully chose not
to define the term “complex business case” in Rule 2.1. It believed the absence of a definition would
allow litigants to seek designation with respect to any business issue that
they believed required special judicial expertise in business matters. It also provided the court with the
flexibility to respond to requests that might not have been anticipated when
the rule was amended.
Both the Commission and the Supreme Court
contemplated that cases involving significant issues under certain chapters of
the North Carolina General Statutes would be designated as complex
business. Those chapters include:
Chapter
55 Business Corporation Act
Chapter 55B Professional Corporations
Chapter 57C Limited Liability Companies
Chapter 59 Partnerships
Chapter 78A Securities Act
Chapter 78B Tender Offer Disclosure Act
Chapter 78C Investment Advisors Act
One of the key factors in assessing
whether or not a case should be designated as complex business is whether the
outcome will have implications for business and industry beyond the conflicts
of the parties to the litigation. If a written decision on disposition of the case
would provide predictability for others in the same business or industry in
making their business decisions, the case will more likely be considered for
designation.
There are also other procedural
indicators of complex business cases.
Such cases may be time sensitive, paper intensive or laden with
discovery disputes. They may have
complex legal and evidentiary issues, multiple parties and jurisdictions, and
have a significant impact on the parties’ business, whether it be from a
monetary or a corporate governance standpoint.
Benefits
Case Management. One of the key benefits to designation
of a case or cases as complex business is the assignment of the litigation to
one judge for handling of all pretrial matters, including motions and
discovery. Since the judge who handled
pretrial motions will also try the case, the possibility of conflicting
decisions on substantive and evidentiary matters is greatly reduced. The most significant improvement in the
management of complex business cases should occur at the pretrial stage.
North Carolina’s Constitution requires
that its superior court judges rotate within a division. While this rotation has numerous salutary
effects, it can have debilitating effects in complex business cases. It often results in the parties having to
reeducate a new judge on every motion.
Different judges hear different stages of the litigation, and the
potential for conflicting rulings exists.
Judge shopping may also occur.
It is difficult to get motions which need prompt attention calendared
for hearing. Civil matters sometimes
lose their priority to criminal cases on both the motion and trial
calendars. Since terms of superior
court generally last only one to two weeks, it is often difficult to find a
judge who can take four to five weeks to try a complicated business case. Judges who do accept exceptional cases under
Rule 2.1 still have to fit those cases into their existing rotation.
Many of the case management difficulties
cited above are eliminated by assigning complex business cases to one judge who
is not in a rotation, but handles only civil cases and controls the calendaring
of the cases on his or her docket.
Case management by one judge also
provides more effective use of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution
tools. Having greater knowledge and
understanding of the case can result in better choices in the timing and method
of ADR in each case. It can also
facilitate the use of expert neutrals.
Similarly, case management can result in
more certainty in the setting of cases for trial and a shorter wait for a trial
date. Since most cases still settle
just before trial, shortening the pretrial phase and getting the case on the
trial calendar can result in a more efficient and less costly disposition of cases.
Speed and flexibility. In many complex business cases,
particularly those involving change in ownership or corporate governance
issues, preliminary injunctive relief is a critical issue. Often decisions need to be rendered before
specific times such as shareholder meetings. Having a judge available to hear
such cases on short notice is a significant benefit to the parties. In many
cases a business simply needs an answer to an issue so it can make a decision
and move on with the operation of the company.
The speed and flexibility provided by the establishment of a business
court helps to meet those needs.
Specialization. Because a business court judge will
hear only complex business cases, he will develop proficiency in handling both
the substantive law and the case management issues that arise in complex
cases. Much as in the Delaware Chancery
Court, each judge will acquire the level of expertise in dealing with complex
cases that come with specialization, which in turn will lead to greater efficiency
and predictability.
Predictability. The creation of a larger body of case law by requiring opinions at the
trial court level should result in greater predictability for business and the
bar.
The Difference Between Complex Business Cases
under Rule 2. 1 and Summary Procedures for Significant Commercial Disputes
under Rule 23.1
At the same time it amended Rule 2.1 and
added Rule 2.2 to the General Rules of Practice, the Supreme Court also added
new Rule 23.1 to the Rules of Practice. The rules exist separate and apart from
each other and should not be read together. Summary Procedures can be used
outside the Business Court and a case can be designated complex business
without invocation of summary procedures.
The Commission on Business Laws and the
Economy recommended that the State establish a summary procedure through which
North Carolina citizens and business entities could more efficiently resolve
significant commercial disputes. The Commission recommended that the
availability of such a summary procedure be limited to civil actions in
Superior Court where: 1) at least $500,000 is in controversy, 2) at least one
party is a North Carolina citizen or corporation, and 3) all parties consent to
the summary proceeding. As a part of
the consent, the parties agree to waive punitive damages and a jury trial. It is an alternative procedure used only
with the consent of all parties.
Rule
23.1 provides in pertinent part:
(a) The senior resident superior court judge of any superior court district, or a presiding judge unless prohibited by local rule may, upon joint motion or consent of all parties, order Summary Procedures for A Significant Commercial Dispute ("Summary Procedures") in any case within the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court that does not include a claim for personal, physical or mental injury where 1) the amount in controversy exceeds $500,000, 2) at least one party is a North Carolina citizen, corporation or business entity (or a subsidiary of such corporation or business entity) or has its principal place of business in North Carolina; and 3) all parties agree to forego any claim of punitive damages and waive the right to a jury trial. The motion or consent for summary procedures must be filed with the court on or before the time the answer or other responsive pleading is due.
Once Summary Procedures are invoked,
significant restrictions apply to filing times, pleadings allowed, motions
allowed, discovery and trial. It is an alternative fast track that can result in
a trial on briefs and affidavits if the parties so choose.
Similar procedures have been in place and
available for use in Delaware for over five years and have yet to be utilized
to any significant extent.
Summary
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.
A.
List Of Closed Cases
The following list shows the 46 closed cases handled to date by the Business Court. Of these cases, 39 settled: five settled after Court Opinion; one settled during trial; and one settled after jury trial. There were six judgments and one voluntary dismissal.
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
Adams Outdoor Limited Partnership et al. v. The City of Charlotte, et al. |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
James Allen Beaty, et al. v. Integon Corporation and Integon National Insurance Company
|
Mecklenburg County |
99 CVS 11540 |
Voluntary Dismissal |
|
|
Bell, Setzer, Park and Gibson PA v. James D. Meyers |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 9957 |
Settled |
|
|
Board of Governors v. Cushman |
Orange County |
97 CVS 1429 |
Settled |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Crowder Construction v. Kiser |
Mecklenburg County |
95 CvS 14097 |
Judgment |
|
|
Continuum Care v. Eakes Corp. |
Warren County |
96 CVS 1465 |
Settled |
|
|
Exide Corporation Branches v. Keever |
Caldwell County |
95 CVS 978 |
Settled |
|
|
Faulkner v. Tarheel Holdings |
Lenoir County |
96 CVS 281 |
Settled |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Filipowski v. High Point Bank & Trust |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 9317 |
Settled |
|
|
Frazier v. Beard |
Catawba County |
94 CVS 2362 |
Judgment |
|
|
Gaafar v. Piedmont Poultry |
Wake County |
96 CVS 630 |
Settled |
|
|
Goings v. P.M. Mattress |
Randolph County |
92 CVS 785 |
Settled |
|
|
Greene, et al. v. Shoemaker, et al. and Community BancShares, Inc. |
Wilkes County |
97 CVS 2118 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Hafele America Co. v. Ergonomix Armdec Pty. Ltd., et al. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 7426 |
Settled |
|
|
Jeffcoat v. Chicago Rawhide |
Gaston County |
95 CVS 4176 |
Settled |
|
|
Lapedes, et al. v. Glaxo Wellcome |
Wake County |
98 CVS 12106 |
Settled |
|
|
Long, et al. v. Abbott Labs, et al. |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 8289 |
Settled |
|
|
Melbourne-Marsh v. North Hills, Inc., et al. |
Wake County |
97 CVS 3212 |
Settled |
|
|
Metric–Kvaerner Fayetteville, et al. v. Bank of Tokyo - Mitsubishi, Ltd., et al. v. Kvaerner Investments |
Bladen County |
97 CVS 743 |
Settled |
|
|
Molinare, et al.v. Broadway & Seymour, et al. |
Forsyth County |
96 CVS 4614 |
Settled after Jury Trial |
|
|
Montrose Value Fund v. Freeman |
Durham County |
96 CVS 1220 |
Settled |
|
|
Petty v. High Point Bank & Trust |
Randolph County |
97 CVS 741 |
Settled |
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Disposition |
|
|
Popkin v. Popkin |
Onslow County |
92 CVS 2910 |
Settled |
|
|
Reeve v. Triad Bank |
Guilford County |
96 CVS 4695 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Roberts, Thomas v. Guy, Onslow Transit |
Onslow County |
93 CVS 1043 |
Settled |
|
|
Robinson v. McMillen Trust et al. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 9042 |
Settled |
|
|
Sayer v. State Street |
Guilford County |
96 CVS 6478 |
Settled |
|
|
Scott v. Sokolov |
Durham County |
96 CVS 2748 |
Settled after Court Opinion |
|
|
Shelley v. Cooper, et al. |
Gaston County |
98 CVS 1244 |
Settled |
|
|
Smith v. NC Motor Speedway, Inc., et al. |
Mecklenburg County |
97 CVS 138 |
Judgment |
|
|
Springer-Eubank , et al. v. Four County Electric Membership Corp., et al. |
New Hanover County |
98 CVS 3194 |
Judgment |
|
|
Thomas v. Golding Farms |
Guilford County |
95 CVS 7323 |
Settled |
|
|
Wiggins v. Charlotte Brewing Co. |
Mecklenburg County |
96 CVS 2537 |
Settled |
|
|
Whitley v. Wallace |
Rowan County |
96 CVS 1795 |
Settled |
|
B. List of Current Cases
The following list shows the 36 cases that are currently being handled by the Business Court. Of these cases, sixteen are active; nine are on appeal, two of which are on appeal after jury trial; four have reached a settlement; and three are stayed. In addition, one case is awaiting decision after a non-jury trial; one is partially settled; one is in mediation; 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 |
Non-Jury Trial Decision Pending |
|
|
|
Bruggers, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al. |
Wake County |
97 CVS 1278 |
Partially Settled |
|
|
|
Coastal Physician Group, Inc. v. Price Waterhouse LLP, et al. See also Scott v. Sokolov (closed file) |
Durham County |
99 CVS 00578 |
In Mediation |
|
|
|
DCC Classics v. Robert Craig & RePac |
Forsyth County |
97 CVS 2856 |
Stayed |
|
|
|
Dominick DeJoy, Jr. v. Louis DeJoy and Michael DeJoy |
Guilford County |
99 CVS 12425 |
Active |
|
|
|
DKH Corporation v. Rankin Patterson Oil Company, Inc. |
Buncombe County |
95 CVS 2511 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Dublin v. UCR |
Johnston County |
90 CVS 0304 |
Stayed |
|
|
|
Ezzell, et al. v. ABT Co., Inc., et al. |
Onslow County |
97 CVS 167 |
Stayed |
||
|
Giduz v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina |
Orange County |
97 CVS 917 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Grossman v. Carolina Drug Inc. |
Guilford County |
95 CVS 8921 95 CVS 9834 |
Active |
|
|
|
Harbor Finance Partners v. PCA International, Ltd. |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 5734 |
Settlement Pending |
||
|
Igar v. Mark Mfg. Corp., et al. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 10198 |
Active |
||
|
Isasi v. FYI |
Forsyth County |
97 CVS 6692 |
On Appeal after Jury Trial |
||
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Status of Case |
|
|
|
LaFar, et al. v. LaFar, et al. |
Gaston County |
98 CVS 5006 |
Settlement Pending |
|
|
|
Lennon and Magruder v. MedCath Incorporated |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 14327 |
Active |
|
|
|
Lupton, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina |
Orange County |
98 CVS 633 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Massey, et al. v. City of Charlotte, et al. |
Mecklenburg County |
99CVS 18764 |
Active |
|
|
|
Moore, et al. v. NationsBank, N.A. |
Mecklenburg County |
99 CVS 1585 |
Settlement Pending |
|
|
|
Oberlin Capital, L.P. v. Edward W. Slavin, et al. |
Wake County |
99 CVS 03447 |
Active |
|
|
|
People Unlimited Consulting, Inc. v. B & A Industries, LLC, et al. Scott Russell v. Janis Love and Claire Russell |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 16126 |
Active |
|
|
|
Peterson v. Robertson |
Forsyth County |
95 CVS 3518 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Pitts, et al. v. American Security Ins. Company and Wachovia Bank of North America, N.A. |
Pitt County |
96 CVS 658 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Praxair, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., et al. |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 8571 |
Active |
|
|
|
Royals, et al. v. Piedmont Electric Repair Co., et al. |
Guilford County |
97 CVS 137 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Ruff, et al. v. Parex, et al. |
New Hanover County |
97 CVS 0059 |
Settlement Pending |
|
|
|
Scarvey v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Charlotte |
Mecklenburg County |
98 CVS 204 |
Active |
|
|
|
Name of Case |
County of Origin |
Case Number |
Status of Case |
|
|
|
Southern Furniture Hardware v. BBT |
Catawba County |
94 CVS 959 |
On Appeal after Jury Trial |
|
|
|
Philip A.R. Staton v. Jerri Russell, et al. |
Forsyth County |
96 CVS 1409 |
Active |
|
|
|
Ingeborg Staton, et al. v. Centura Bank, et al. |
Forsyth County |
96 CVS 7224 |
Active |
|
|
|
Piedmont Institute of Pain Management v. Poyner & Spruill |
Forsyth County |
96 CVS 7140 |
Active |
|
|
|
Ingeborg Staton, et al. v. PIPM |
Forsyth County |
99 CVS 2628 |
Active |
|
|
|
Ingeborg Staton, et al. v. Centura Bank, et al. |
Forsyth County |
99 CVS 5156 |
Active |
|
|
|
Tomlin, et al. v. Dylan Mortgage Incorporated, et al. |
New Hanover |
99 CVS 3551 |
Active |
|
|
|
WestPoint Stevens, Inc., et al. v. Panda-Rosemary Corporation, et al. |
Halifax County |
98 CVS 569 |
On Appeal |
|
|
|
Wilson Realty v. Asheboro-Randolph Board of Realtors, Inc, et al. |
Randolph County |
95 CVS 0482 |
Jury Trial Pending |
|
|
C. Venue
The following is a list of the counties in which the Business Court cases (both active and closed) originated. The list column is followed by column designating the number of cases assigned to the Business Court from each county and a column stating the percentage of total Business Court cases originating from each county. See also the map on the following page.
|
COUNTY |
NUMBER OF CASES |
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES |
|
Bladen |
1 |
1% |
|
Buncombe |
1 |
1% |
|
Burke |
1 |
1% |
|
Caldwell |
1 |
1% |
|
Catawba |
2 |
3% |
|
Durham |
3 |
4% |
|
Forsyth |
8 |
10% |
|
Gaston |
3 |
4% |
|
Guilford |
18 |
22% |
|
Halifax |
1 |
1% |
|
Johnston |
1 |
1% |
|
Lenoir |
1 |
1% |
|
Mecklenburg |
17 |
21% |
|
New Hanover |
3 |
4% |
|
Onslow |
3 |
4% |
|
Orange |
4 |
5% |
|
Pitt |
1 |
1% |
|
Randolph |
4 |
5% |
|
Rowan |
1 |
1% |
|
Wake |
6 |
7% |
|
Warren |
1 |
1% |
|
Wilkes |
1 |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total in 22 Counties |
82 |
100 % |
Every case is tried in the county in which it was originally filed unless counsel request change of venue. No jury trial has been moved to Guilford County; only three non-jury cases have been transferred to Guilford County, each due to its own unique set of circumstances.
Hearings and other pretrial matters are held where facilities are available and are scheduled for the convenience of the Court and the parties. The Court frequently encounters difficulty obtaining courtroom space in major metropolitan areas on short notice.
The Court is required to
write opinions in non-jury matters assigned as Complex Business. In the other
Exceptional cases assigned pursuant to Rule 2.1, the decision about whether to
write an opinion is in the discretion of the Court. Opinions are generally written where issues are matters of first
impression.
A. List of Opinions
The official opinions in the
cases listed below are on file in the courthouse of the county of jurisdiction. Electronically formatted
copies of these opinions are also posted on the Business Court web site at www.ncbusinesscourt.net. Decisions which have been affirmed or
reversed on appeal are noted.
2000
BRUGGERS
v. EASTMAN KODAK CO., et al.
2000
NCBC 3 (3-17-2000)
97-CVS-11278
(Wake)
SCARVEY
v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHARLOTTE
2000
NCBC 2 (2-23-2000)
98-CVS-204
(Mecklenburg)
PITTS v. AMERICAN SECURITY INS. CO., et al.
2000 NCBC 1 (2-2-2000)
96-CVS-658
(Pitt)
1999
WESTPOINT STEVENS, INC. v. PANDA-ROSEMARY CORP.
1999 NCBC 11 (12-16-1999)
99-CVS-9818
(Guilford)
LONG v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al.
1999 NCBC 10 (7-30-1999)
97-CVS-8289 (Mecklenburg)
PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC., et al.
1999 NCBC 9 (10-20-1999)
98-CVS-03194 (New Hanover)
SPRINGER-EUBANK CO., et al. v. FOUR COUNTY ELEC. MEMBERSHIP CORP.
1999 NCBC 8 (10-20-1999)
98-CVS-8571 (Mecklenburg)
IN RE SENERGY AND THORO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1999 NCBC 7 (7-14-1999)
96-CVS-5900 (New Hanover)
RUFF v. PAREX, INC.
1999 NCBC 6 (6-17-1999)
96-CVS-0059 (New Hanover)
PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC.
1999 NCBC 5 (6-1-1999)
98-CVS-8571
(Mecklenburg)
LUPTON v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
1999 NCBC 4 (6-14-1999)
98-CVS-633 (Orange)
LUPTON v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
GIDUZ v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
1999 NCBC 3 (6-14-1999)
98-CVS-663
(Orange)
ANDREA PETERSON v. M.G. "PAT" ROBERTSON
1999 NCBC 2 (5-25-1999)
95-CVS-3518
(Forsyth)
ROYALS v. PIEDMONT ELECTRIC REPAIR CO.
1999 NCBC 1 (3-3-1999)
97-CVS-720
(Guilford)
1998
GREENE v. SHOEMAKER
1998 NCBC 4 (10-24-1998)
97-CVS-2118
(Wilkes)
BRADLEY V. U.S. PACKAGING, INC., et al.
1998 NCBC 3 (4-9-1998)
95
CVS 8986 (Guilford)
Affirmed
COA98-1268
CROWDER CONSTR. CO. v. KISER
1998 NCBC 2 (3-10-1998)
95-CVS-14097
(Mecklenburg)
Affirmed
COA98-949
BYERS V. R.E. CARPENTER, JR., et al.
1998 NCBC 1 (3-10-1998)
94 CVS
04889 (Wake)
1997
SMITH v. N.C. MOTOR SPEEDWAY
1997 NCBC 5 (11-12-1997)
97-CVS-9961
(Mecklenburg)
Affirmed COA98-81
CHARLOTTE COPY DATA, INC. v. HABBAL
1997 NCBC 4 (11-11-1997)
96-CVS-694
(Mecklenburg)
BEAM v. WORLDWAY CORP.
1997 NCBC 3 (10-23-1997)
96-CVS-469
(Gaston)
REEVE & ASSOCS. INC. v. UCB
1997 NCBC 2 (10-6-1997)
96-CVS-4695
(Guilford)
WILSON REALTY & CONSTR., INC. v. ASHEBORO-RANDOLPH BOARD OF REALTORS
1997 NCBC 1 (9-30-1997)
95-CVS-482
(Randolph)
Remanded COA
98-1061
1996
SCOTT v. SOKOLOV
1996 NCBC 2 (12-2-1996)
96-CVS-2748
(Durham)
FRAZIER v. BEARD
1996 NCBC 1 (10-24-1996)
94-CVS-2362
(Catawba)
Affirmed COA97-387
B.
APPELLATE REVIEW
Currently, decisions of the Business Court are reviewed in the same manner as any other decision in the Superior Court. However, to accomplish the goal of providing more efficient and timely resolution of business disputes, it may be appropriate to consider implementing a similar “fast track” appellate procedure. To have an expedited lower court procedure followed by a one-to two-year wait for the appellate ruling defeats the goal of trying to establish a system for handling corporate disputes equivalent to the Delaware court system.
C. PRECEDENTIAL VALUE
The opinions written
in Business Court cases have not been published except electronically. Even if published, they have no value as
precedent because neither the Supreme Court nor the General Assembly has
enacted a rule or statute dealing with the issue.
Please visit the Business Court web site at www.ncbusinesscourt.net
Paperless Court and E-Filing
The development of court technology for electronic filing has been an integral part of the Business Court’s plan of operation. The technology issues are inextricably intertwined in the facilities issue. Grants from a number of foundations, including the North Carolina Bar Association, have helped to support technology in the facility. Substantial funds and effort have been expended in establishing a paperless court and courtroom.
The technology project was designed to achieve the following goals:
· Create an electronic filing system that eliminates paper filings with the court. This filing system will serve as a test system for other courts and for other government agencies, proving that business can safely and securely use electronic means of filing rather than create paper. Electronic filing is far more cost efficient for the sender and receiver. It speeds the filing process, particularly in the court system. It eliminates the need for people to handle paper and should prove to be less error prone than manual filing.
The electronic filing system does not currently eliminate the obligation to file a paper copy with the clerk of court in the county of origin. However, the system does have the capacity of charging/collecting a filing fee, which would obviate the need for paper filing.
The core system currently allows a pleading to be filed electronically via the Internet at the attorney’s office, processes the filing to the court case management system, electronically files the document for archive, and places the filing on the Court’s docket in a matter of a few minutes. This procedure immediately posts this information for review of docket, filing and calendar information to the Court’s web page without any programming or web page design skills required. The Court makes a selection on the case management module, and the motion is on the calendar for a hearing.
Courtroom presentation and
videoconferencing
· Create a courtroom of the future in which all pleadings and exhibits are available on monitors in the courtroom. The courtroom is wired for video conferencing, allowing attorneys or their clients who wish to participate in hearings from remote locations to do so by video conference. When all parties do not consent, the Court decides in each individual case whether the circumstances permit and warrant testimony by videoconference. Participants at remote locations have the ability to communicate with lawyers via the internet while the hearing is in progress. Attorneys will not need to bring any equipment to the courtroom. Everything they need is already in the courtroom and can even be preprogrammed before trial or hearing. Touch screen technology in the courtroom eliminates the need for any extensive knowledge of the use of computers. Briefs and other documents may be hyperlinked, providing quick access for both the Court and the attorneys.
·
Create
an internet accessible compilation of all Court opinions. All of the Court’s opinions are
accessible on the Court web site. See
our web site at www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions.
In addition, the Business Court technology provides:
• Public access to the court file over the internet. See Exhibit B attached for sample screens of the Business Court docket.
• The potential elimination of paper records on appeal.
• An electronic library accessible by the court from remote locations.
• A faster, more efficient, more economical court system.
• Easy instant access to all Court opinions without the delay or expense involved in publication.
• Internet access to the Court calendar. See Exhibit C attached for a sample screen of the Court calendar.
Specific elements covered by the project include electronic filing, trial court administration, exhibit technology and remote access to public information. In addition to the many benefits of automation, the Business Court’s open architecture design will reduce the training cost usually associated with using multiple technologies as well as reduce hardware and software costs for all future enhancements of the system by eliminating additional support equipment, additional software, training and electrical requirements.
The system currently has the following features:
· video display and control from up to 8 video sources;
· document display for any OLE object associated file;
· graphics display;
· sound control;
· direct link to case files;
· touch-screen interface;
· touch-screen interface with pen for witness;
· remote connection for both parties allowing connection of third party video and computer devices supplied by law firms such as computers, VCR, and overhead projectors with video output;
· network interface for defense and plaintiff notebook computer interface to courtroom resources;
· Internet real-time broadcast for up to 254 users (hardware is the restriction) that can be used for court reporting and a variety of other innovations;
· jury introduction and instruction module providing the orientation program for the jury (under development); and
· Judge’s toolbar which allows the judge and/or clerk a split screen environment with access to court resources without interrupting the view of the courtroom or task being performed during the hearing.
Uses of technology by
other courts
The independent project manager contracted by the AOC is coordinating delivery and implementation of both hardware and software. The project manager has worked closely with the Purchasing Department and Information Services Division of the AOC to ensure compliance with state purchasing guidelines and compatibility with equipment used in other parts of the court system.
The Business Court is a national forerunner in the implementation of ‘state of the art’ computer technology, providing the legal community and the court system with automated resources that will promote more efficient and economical judicial management of litigation. The Court is pioneering the use of automation concepts that will greatly reduce the load of document processing and case management for civil litigation and will continue to serve our state’s interests as we enter into the new century. 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.
At least three counties are planning high tech courtrooms patterned after the Business Court model. A fourth county is modifying the Business Court case management software to manage civil cases electronically and provide attorneys with Internet access to calendars. The National Judicial College plans to install the Business Court e-filing system as a model for other states, and the Wake Forest University Law School will also train its students in its use.
Use of the courtroom and its technology is not limited to the Business Court. Any judge can use both the courtroom and electronic filing for complex cases. The courtroom has been used for arbitration, presentations to law school classes and to undergraduate business classes, electronic filing training classes for attorneys and legal staff, a paralegal association meeting on electronic filing, Inn of Court and various superior court judges’ committee meetings.
Sources
Technology
|
3
Private Foundations |
$105,000 |
|
State
Appropriated Funds |
$45,000 |
|
|
$150,000 |
Equipment
|
State
Appropriated Funds |
$30,000 |
Library
|
State
Appropriated Funds |
$10,000 |
Rent
for Facility
|
Joseph M. Bryan
Foundation |
$37,800 |
|
State
Appropriation (3/01/2000 - 2/28/2001) |
$52,000 |
$89,800
Furniture
for Facility
|
Joseph M.
Bryan Foundation |
$33,000 |
Current Budget and Status
All funds will be expended by June 30,
2000.
The business court concept has been well received by the North Carolina Bar and the business community. The Business Court has substantially met its goals of providing effective case management for complex business cases and developing and publishing a body of case law dealing with business issues.
Through its use of technology, the North Carolina Business Court has become a model for other business courts across the country. The technology created in the Business Court has generated other programs and innovative uses of technology in other parts of our court system. It has provided a laboratory to test the technology systems that will prove critical to the efficient operation of the courts of North Carolina in the future.