• Blog Post

    Rule 11 Sanctions and Incompetency Proceedings

              In Re Cranor began as a straightforward incompetency proceeding, but devolved into a Rule 11 battle between two North Carolina attorneys.[1]  The proceeding centered on a woman named Carole Cranor.  Because of her early onset dementia, Carole had difficulty preparing meals for herself, suffered dehydration, and sustained a fall due to her diminished mental capacity.  As such, she hired a friend and attorney, Harriet Hopkins, to help her choose a long-term care facility and get her affairs in order.  Despite a falling out over their mother’s estate some years back, Frank, Carole’s brother, intervened when he realized Ms. Hopkins drafted a durable power of attorney (“DPOA”)…

  • Blog Post

    North Carolina Business Court Awards Rule 11 Sanctions for Second Time this Fall

              The North Carolina Business Court recently entered Rule 11 sanctions against attorneys who relied on inaccurate information from their clients in preparing and filing lawsuits.  The decision comes just two months after the NCBC awarded Rule 11 sanctions in a case with similar facts (which we summarized Here).                In the most recent decision, the client, John Mauney, represented to his attorneys that he was a manager and member of NC Bioremediation, LLC, and therefore had authority to file a lawsuit on the company’s behalf.[1]  In fact, Mauney was not, nor had he ever been, a member or manager…

  • Blog Post

    Rule 11 Sanctions Imposed for Improper Breach of Fiduciary Duties Claims Against Rank-and-File Employees

               In September 2011, Southeast Air Charter, Inc. (“Southeast Air”) brought suit against three (3) employees (“Defendants”) alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.   The North Carolina Business Court (“NCBC”) determined all defendants were rank-and-file employees of Southeast Air and therefore could not be subject to the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims.  As such, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys were subject to Rule 11 sanctions for bringing these claims without any factual basis.  In determining the appropriate amount of sanctions and the allocation of attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendants, Judge James Gale, Chief Special Superior Court Judge of the NCBC,…