Jeffreys Leasing Co. v. Gillani (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0036, 8 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Wayne County Superior Court (J. Carlton Cole, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Defendant’s answer admitted that Sapna Hotel Group of Peachtree City, LLC ...Read More »
Citibank, South Dakota, N.A. v. Gable (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0033, 8 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Wayne County District Court (R. Les Turner, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Defendant admitted to having an AT&T Universal Rewards Card but ...Read More »
Samost v. Duke University Our Court of Appeals held, Even if the “Bulletin of Duke University, The Duke Community Standard in Practice: A Guide for Undergraduates” was a contract between Duke and its students, plaintiffs cannot show that Duke breached the Bulletin’s terms because plaintiffs filed suit instead of allowing the disciplinary process to continue to completion.Read More »
U.S. ex rel. Steven May v. Purdue Pharma LP Although a relator in an earlier False Claims Act suit against defendant pharmaceutical company saw his FCA suit dismissed pursuant to a general release he signed to obtain a severance package when he was laid off as sales manager, that release was personal to the sales manager and does not bar a later FCA suit filed by two new relators – the sales manager’s wife and another sales representative for defendant.Read More »
Medical Facets NC LLC v. Medical Facets LLC Plaintiff has alleged that defendant has breached both the express terms of the parties’ contract and the implied covenant of good faith. Plaintiff alleges that the contract says the parties may not unilaterally force contract modifications, yet, despite plaintiff’s performance under the contract, defendant has claimed breach and demanded a forced contract modification and an unlawful payment of $10,000 in addition to the consideration it has already received; moreover, the complaint sets out defendant’s alleged bad faith attempts to intimidate plaintiff and to deny it the use of the licensed technology.
Tagged with: TechnologyRead More »
Stainless Valve Co. v. Safefresh Technologies, LLC Anthony Garwood managed two LLCs and initially contacted plaintiff on behalf of the defendant-LLC. When he contacted plaintiff again a few years later, he failed for months to correct plaintiff’s belief that he was still acting on behalf of defendant rather than his second LLC.Read More »
John Wm. Brown Co. v. State Employees’ Credit Union A contractor’s surety let the contractor’s lawsuit against the project owner go on for a year before the surety stepped in to unilaterally accept the owner’s year-old settlement offer (as the surety’s indemnity contract allowed it to do); nonetheless, laches does not bar the owner from enforcing the settlement agreement.
Tagged with: Settlement AgreementRead More »
Contract – Asset Sale – Antitrust Claim – Not Conveyed – Unjust Enrichment — Tort/Negligence – Conversion – Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations
Flexible Foam Products, Inc. v. Vitafoam Inc. When defendant sold the assets of its High Point, NC and Tupelo, Mississippi plants to plaintiff, defendant excluded from the sale “all intangible rights and property of Seller not used exclusively in the Business (provided that such rights and property are not material to the conduct of the Business as conducted immediately prior to the Closing).” Defendant’s antitrust claim against chemical companies is an intangible right that was never “used” at the High Point and Tupelo facilities; furthermore, the antitrust claim was “not material to the conduct of the” High Point and Tupelo plants at all, let alone immediately prior to the closing.Read More »
Moore v. G&I VI Forest Hills GP, LLC The parties never discussed a confidentiality clause, but the written settlement agreement that defendants presented to plaintiffs included such a clause; consequently, there was no meeting of the minds. We reverse the trial court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement.
Tagged with: settlementRead More »
Atkinson v. Reikowsky The parties’ “handshake” agreement was an implied contract that would support an unjust enrichment claim; however, the trial court’s award of damages is not supported by findings of fact or by the evidence in the record. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.Read More »