A few months after successfully settling its lawsuit and obtaining a consent judgment against JUUL, the State of North Carolina doubled down, suing five of JUUL’s officers and directors for unfair or deceptive trade...more
Contract with “substantial connection” with NC leads to PJ over a California Defendant who never visited NC.
In Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC, 2020 NCBC 95, Judge Conrad held that...more
If you have employees that work from home (WFH), you may be subject to PJ in their location.
During the last few months, the NC Supreme and Business Courts have answered some tricky PJ questions: Are pre-conflict contacts...more
Q: Are pre-conflict NC contacts relevant?
A: Yes.
Q: What if they relate to a separate contract between the parties?
A: Yes. Still relevant.
In Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc., 2020 NCBC 18 (Mar. 13,...more
In Cohen v. Continental, 2020 NCBC Order 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2020) Judge Gale discussed several practical PJ issues – including waiver and website/e-mail contacts. Some takeaways are:
•PJ is a waivable defense....more
Contacts, not contracts, are the key.
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Beem USA Limited-Liability Ltd. P’ship v. Grax Consulting, LLC, — N.C. –, 838 S.E.2d 158 (2020), Judge Gale decided a series of personal...more
Though challenges to Business Court designations, i.e. subject matter jurisdiction, are relatively common (see, e.g., Business Court Retains Case Even After ‘Jurisdictional Hook’ Claim is Dismissed), challenges to personal...more