Labor & Employment – Constructive Fraud – Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices – Unjust Enrichment – Wage & Hour Act

The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s constructive fraud claim, as plaintiff could not establish a fiduciary duty.

We modify and affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Plaintiff Ryan Knudson brought claims against defendant for constructive fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Wage & Hour Act, all of which the trial court dismissed in accordance with Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) of our Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, plaintiff argued none of his claims were correctly dismissed. As his claims for constructive fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment were all either lacking an essential element or time-barred, we affirm the dismissal of those claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). Further, while the complaint itself could not support a dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims arising under the Wage & Hour Act under Rule 12(b)(6), the trial court’s further consideration of exhibits attached to Defendant’s answer justified this claim’s dismissal under Rule 12(c).

This case involved claims by plaintiff against defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc., his prior employer, arising out of Lenovo’s alleged failure to pay him certain monetary awards for several “Invention Disclosures” that he submitted between May 2016 and October 2017 as part of Lenovo’s internal patent development program. Several of plaintiff’s “Invention Disclosures” were either under review by Lenovo or in the patent filing process when plaintiff was laid off in October 2017. Lenovo later informed plaintiff that he was ineligible to receive any further awards under the program because he was no longer an active employee.

Plaintiff’s constructive fraud claim was properly dismissed, as plaintiff could not establish a fiduciary duty. We also agree that plaintiff’s UDTPA claim was properly dismissed as it was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Further, plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was time-barred under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(1) and, therefore, the trial court properly dismissed that claim. Finally, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s Wage & Hour claims in light of additional exhibits attached to defendant’s answer.

Modified and affirmed.

Knudson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-230-23, 29 pp.) (Hunter Murphy, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court (R. Allen Baddour Jr., J.) Carnes Warwick PLLC, by Tara Warwick, for plaintiff-appellant; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Raymond M. Bennett and E. Carson Lane, for defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals