The Eastern District of North Carolina recently decided a case affirming that, while North Carolina courts have not yet adopted the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, North Carolina would adopt the doctrine under certain circumstances.[1] Spirax Sarco, Inc., (“Spirax”), alleged a claim for, among other things, injunctive relief under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure against one of its former employees. Spirax purported that defendant Bryan Johnson (“Johnson”) used his company issued laptop to download thousands of confidential computer files to personal devices without permission. Johnson resigned from Spirax on May 27, 2014 to work for SSI Engineering, Inc. (“SSI…
-
-
Challenging the Validity of a Will vs. the Construction of a Will: North Carolina Court of Appeals Clarifies
Earlier in September the North Carolina Court of Appeals highlighted the procedural difference between challenging the validity of a will through a caveat proceeding and resolving questions as to the construction of a will through an action for declaratory judgment.[1] Plaintiff, Deborah Hildebran (“Hildebran”) was listed as the executrix of her father’s will (the “Will”). Upon her father’s death, the Will was probated in common form before the clerk and Hildebran was appointed executrix. The Will contained several handwritten markings, notably a line that struck through the name of the testator’s granddaughter Chanté Brittian…
-
Partition Proceedings in North Carolina
Real property owned by multiple individuals is held either as tenants in common, joint tenants with rights of survivorship, or (in the case of married couples) tenants by the entirety. Disputes may arise among joint owners of real property regarding its best and highest use or because personal relationships deteriorate. When parties can’t agree whether to sell the property or how to divide and/or use it, they can turn to the court’s for assistance. In North Carolina, joint owners of property are entitled to an actual partition of the disputed land as a matter of right, and may institute a special proceeding before…
-
NCBC: Fifty-Mile Customer Based Geographic Restriction Makes Non-Compete Agreement Unreasonable
In August, the North Carolina Business Court (“NCBC”) determined a non-compete agreement was unreasonable because of its overly broad geographic restriction, and denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit a former employee from competing with it.[1] In North Carolina, non-compete agreements are generally disfavored and strictly construed against the drafting party. A non-compete agreement must be (1) in writing; (2) made a part of the employment contract; (3) supported by consideration; (4) reasonable both as to time and territory; and (5) no broader than necessary to protect the employer’s interest.[2] In determining the reasonableness of such agreements, the…
-
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,…
