Last week, the North Carolina Business Court denied a motion to dismiss, stating that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over claims against an out-of-state executive when he sought personal benefit and threatened to alert North Carolina law enforcement of alleged misconduct.
Moore v. Brooks and Winthrop Intelligence, LLC arose out of a series of escalating accusations, threats, and demands that culminated in the tragic suicide of a Durham business owner, Drue Moore, on the very day he was told he would face arrest if he did not hand over more assets. The Court’s decision, in an action based on such disturbing facts, explains how out-of-state actors accused of intentional torts can find themselves subject to North Carolina jurisdiction.
According to the complaint, Robert Scott Brooks, Winthrop’s Chief Investment and Financial Officer, directed a steady stream of letters, emails, and demands to Drue from late 2024 to early 2025, alleging that Drue had taken millions of dollars in unauthorized distributions from Winthrop. Plaintiffs allege that Brooks demanded repayment in the form of millions in assets (some of which Brooks demanded to receive personally) and threatened criminal charges and public ruin to force compliance.
Drue lived and worked in Durham. Brooks allegedly knew that. And despite living in Arizona, Brooks repeatedly threatened to involve North Carolina law enforcement to increase pressure. Ultimately, Drue took his own life on January 10, 2025—the deadline Brooks had set for avoiding arrest.
After this, Drue’s heirs (the “Plaintiffs”) sued Brooks and Winthrop over Brooks’s conduct, which Plaintiffs allege Brooks engaged in personally and in his capacity as a Winthrop executive.
Because Brooks Sought Personal Gain, the Business Court Has Personal Jurisdiction
Brooks asked the Court to dismiss the claims against him personally on the basis that the Business Court—sitting in North Carolina—did not have jurisdiction over him as a citizen of Arizona. Brooks argued that while he was communicating with Drue, those communications were (1) not initiated by Brooks but by Drue and (2) even if initiated by Brooks, initiated on behalf of Winthrop.
When a defendant intentionally directs threats, demands, and high-stakes communications to a North Carolina resident about North Carolina assets, the Court held, he should “reasonably anticipate being haled into court” here.
Brooks’s corporate role in Winthrop did not insulate him because his personal participation in the alleged conduct was enough. Specifically, Brooks allegedly demanded that Drue transfer assets to him personally, not just repay Winthrop.
The Court further explained that Brooks oversaw Winthrop’s business operations in North Carolina and, with knowledge of Drue’s North Carolina residency, demanded that Drue transfer North Carolina-based assets and directed demands and threats into North Carolina with the intent that Drue act on those demands and threats in North Carolina.
The Court also placed significant weight on Brooks’s threats to alert North Carolina law enforcement.
Because the Plaintiffs Alleged Brooks’s Conduct was Unfounded, the Emotional Distress Claim Survived
Brooks also asked the Business Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), arguing that the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to claim IIED. North Carolina’s standard for IIED is famously high, and only a handful of such claims survive a motion to dismiss. And yet, the Court decided that the allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint were sufficient to avoid dismissal at this stage.
In North Carolina, to establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) which is intended to cause, and (3) does cause severe emotional distress. Generally, the bar for “extreme and outrageous conduct” is high.
But in Moore, the Plaintiffs alleged that they found no documents substantiating Brooks’s allegations that Drue had engaged in misconduct and that Brooks never had any intent to contact law enforcement over the alleged misconduct. To the Court, this was enough to render Brooks’s conduct sufficiently “extreme and outrageous,” and the claim survived. The severity of the emotional distress is clear from the tragic outcome.
Why This Decision Matters
For businesses and executives, this case makes clear that North Carolina Courts take the protection of North Carolina citizens seriously and will exercise jurisdiction when an out-of-state corporate officer harms a North Carolina resident. And the potential exposure is not just to the business—officers can be personally haled into North Carolina Courts if they seek personal benefit from a North Carolina resident. The tragic facts of this case explain why.
