There were so many inadequacies in the covenant not to compete at issue in Accelerando, Inc. v. Relentless Sols., Inc., 2025 NCBC 29. that Chief Judge Robinson wasted little ink in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims resting on the non-compete.
The most glaring flaw in the non-compete signed by Defendant Yoder, Plaintiff’s former Vice-President of Platform
When a Court enters sanctions against a party, it is usually the result of the opposing party filing a Motion for Sanctions or the Court becoming so outraged at one party’s conduct that it delivers a punishment. But in Davis v. Davis Funeral Service, Inc., 2024 NCBC 20, Judge Conrad sanctioned both the Plaintiff
Can you file a Motion for Summary Judgment too soon? The Plaintiffs in Wright v. LoRusso, 2023 NCBC 34 did exactly that, and were called out by Business Court Judge Conrad for violating Business Court Rules.
The Plaintiffs, members of an LLC called Cinch.Skirt, alleged that Defendant LoRusso, the majority member of the LLC, had
There are two words that have been in virtually every covenant not to compete that I have looked at. They are “directly or indirectly.” Banish those words from your covenant drafting! The covenant not to compete considered by the NC Business Court in Prometheus Group Enterprises, LLC v. Gibson, 2023 NCBC 23, and found
The errata sheet. You’ve probably never given it a second thought. It is baked into the Rule of Civil Procedure governing the taking of depositions. NCRCP 30(e) gives the deponent the right to review her deposition and to make “changes in form or substance” by completing an errata sheet and stating the reason for the
I couldn’t pass on writing about a Business Court Order that the Court itself described as “Sua Sponte Order on Abusive Language.” This is In re SE Eye Ctr, 2023 NCBC Order 15.
Abusive language? That might be too complimentary a description of the stream of vitriol let loose by Mark McDaniel, a “contingent
Plaintiffs asked for an award of attorneys’ fees in Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody, 2022 NCBC 48. They had been awarded $3 million in compensatory and punitive and thjeir lawyers sought $2.5 million in fees. The motion for fees was not successful, for a number of reasons, but what sticks out in Judge
The parties in Leonard v. Ast, 2022 NCBC 35, decided by the NC Business Court last week, were collaborators in a business venture they named Barks and Recreation. Barks was a dog training business which the Defendants felt would funnel business to their already existing dog grooming business, “Just Dog People.”
As anyone interested in
This is the first of several intended posts on the so far unexamined “Orders of Significance” handed down by the NC Business Court. This one focuses on several Orders from Chief Judge Bledsoe on whether a case was properly designated to the Court. It is embarrassingly long, sorry.
Intellectual Property Cases
A handful of these
