Reese v. Brooklyn Village, LLC. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0217, 27 pp.) (Linda Stephens, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court. (W. David Lee, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion.
Holding: Where plaintiff raised or could have raised the same claims in one or more of his four previous lawsuits related to the plan to redevelop Charlotte’s city center, plaintiff’s claims in his fifth such lawsuit are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
We affirm the trial court’s orders denying plaintiff’s motion to strike, granting the defendant-county’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granting defendant Brooklyn Village’s motion to dismiss.
Since the county’s res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses are determinative, they are obviously not “insufficient” defenses which should have been stricken by the trial court.
Session Law 2000-65, as modified by Session Law 2007-33, remains valid; hence, the intent and authorization resolutions between the county and Brooklyn Village are lawful and enforceable. As the agreements are lawful, plaintiff’s claims against Brooklyn Village stating otherwise are claims for which no relief can be granted under any legal theory. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Brooklyn Village’s motion to dismiss.