Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. In its written discovery responses, plaintiff promised expert evidence to prove its damages, and plaintiff provided a report from its designated expert. However, on Dec. 22, 2011, the court found the expert’s methodology unreliable and excluded his reports and proposed testimony. Because plaintiff has failed to supplement its discovery responses and trial is set for May 14, plaintiff will not be allowed to present evidence of its damages.
Eaton v. Campbell Although defendants “question[] the law that should have been applied to decide the issues presented herein,” defendants fail to identify what, if any, relevant law was the source of the purported “confusion and misinterpretation in the [trial court’s] rulings,” and which, if any, law should have been applied in its stead. Because defendants’ limited and unsupported arguments give us no reason to disturb the trial court’s judgment in which its conclusions of law are supported by its findings of fact which are, in turn, supported by the record evidence, we affirm.
Kearney v. Barker Plaintiff made it clear that his original complaint was intended to sue only the father, Phillip Junior Barker, and not the son, Phillip Renard Barker. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the son as a defendant.
Dodeka, L.L.C. v. Cobb Although plaintiff’s notice of appeal did not designate the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside default, it was an intermediate order under G.S. § 1-278. By making an oral motion to set aside default, plaintiff preserved its exception to the order; since the order did not determine the amount of damages, it was an interlocutory entry of default; and as a result of the entry of default, plaintiff was deemed to have admitted the allegations in defendant’s counterclaims, so the order involved the merits of the case and affected the trial court’s final judgment. Under Sellers v. FMC Corp., 716 S.E.2d 661 (2011), plaintiff’s appeal from the order denying its motion to set aside default is properly before this court on appeal.
RBC Bank (USA) v. Chowdhury Even though defendant agreed not to contest jurisdiction in this action, the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional issue. Where plaintiff waited more than one year to file this deficiency action, it is time-barred.
LendingTree, LLC v. Anderson Even though defendant’s answer alleged that venue was improper, since defendant (1) stipulated in the case management report that venue was proper, (2) did not object to the conclusion in the case management order that venue was proper, and (3) waited three years after filing his answer – while continuing to participate in this litigation – before pressing his improper venue defense, defendant has waived the defense of improper venue.
Blitz v. Agean, Inc. Even though the defendant-restaurant purchased the list of fax numbers to which it faxed menus and coupons, numerous customers had asked defendant to fax its menus. A class action under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act would devolve into a series of individual inquiries regarding whether the plaintiff had consented to receive the faxes.
Mills v. Funkhouser The trial court based its conclusion that defendant had committed unlawful conduct against plaintiff solely on one finding of fact: “Defendant has on more than one occasion driven by the Plaintiff’s house causing the Plaintiff to fear for the safety of his father. 5 years of harassing.” However, plaintiff never indicated that he feared for the safety of his father; he merely testified that he did not want defendant engaging his father in conversation because his father didn’t “need to hear that mess.” The remaining finding, “5 years of harassing,” standing alone, does not support a no-contact order under G.S. § 50C-1(6).
Heritage Operating, L.P. v. N.C. Propane Exchange, LLC Even though plaintiff has filed suit in other states against some of the same individual defendants alleging breach of the same covenant not to compete, each action involves the formation, financing, and operation of a different company that does business solely in the state in which the action was brought. Whether the parties’ non-competition agreements were breached by the formation of each company depends on the factual circumstances in each case. Similarly, whether the non-competition agreements were breached by the financing and/or operation of each company depends on the specific factual circumstances in each case.
Dixon v. Gist Even though the parties’ pleadings reveal that plaintiff should have discovered any fraud in her real property conveyance more than three years before she filed suit, she nevertheless filed suit less than three years after defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duty to her and converted the funds in her bank account.
