Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
There's an ominous sounding sentence in a Business Court decision this week:
A party practicing before the North Carolina Business Court should take the deadlines imposed by its orders and the rules of practice very seriously.
Estate of Capps v. Blondeau. 2014 NCBC 24 at ¶36 [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers]. It is so ominous sounding that you would expect that sentence to be followed by punishment of the non-compliant party. But Judge Jolly exercised mercy over the party which hadn't followed the rules.
What was the rule violation? Two of the Defendants in the case (the Knights) hadn't filed their brief in support of their motion for summary judgment until more than 24 hours after the filing deadline set by the Court in its Case Management Order (requires all motions to be accompanied by a brief). Also, the Knights never filed with the Court the exhibits referenced in their brief (BCR 15.5 requires a party to provide documents supporting allegations of fact in a brief). Adding to their disregard of the Business Court Rules, the Knights never filed their Motion with the Wake County Superior Court (required by BCR 8.1)and they did not pay the required twenty dollar motion fee (dictated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-305(f)).
Plaintiffs demanded that the Business Court summarily deny the Knights' Motion for Summary Judgment due to the rules violations, which is permitted under BCR 15.11. That rule says that:
[t]he failure to file a brief or response within the time specified in [BCR 15] shall constitute a waiver of the right thereafter to file such a brief or response. . . . A motion unaccompanied by a required brief may, in the discretion of the Court, be summarily denied.
Judge Jolly, in his discretion, opted to consider the Knights' Motion for Summary Judgment notwithstanding the Rules violations. He referenced an appellate court decision -- Hammonds v. Lumbee River Elec. Membership Corp., 178 N.C. App. 1, 15 (2006) -- as support for his holding that:
[i]n deciding whether to dismiss a filing for procedural error, courts should weigh the impact of the rule violations on the non- violating party and the importance of upholding the integrity of the rules against the broader public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on the merits.
Op. Par. 37. He noted the "relatively short delay" in meeting the deadline and the "relatively minor impact on Plaintiffs due to the delay." Op. ¶37.
But after all that procedural hoopla, Judge Jolly went ahead, considered the motion for summary judgment and denied it without much discussion.
So the only valuable lesson out of this decision is to follow the Business Court Rules. A complete set of those Rules is available here.
Read other articles on the North Carolina Business Litigation Report, a blog for lawyers focusing on issues of North Carolina business law and the day-to-day practice of business litigation in North Carolina courts.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, please connect with us through our corporate site.