N.C. Business Court Opinions, January 1, 2026 – January 13, 2026
By: Rachel Brinson
KJET Ventures, LLC v. Jamison, 2026 NCBC Order 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2026) (Houston, J.)
Key Terms: public censure and admonishment; Rule 11 sanctions, order to show cause, criminal contempt; attorneys’ fees; withdrawal as counsel
As summarized here, the Court previously ordered Defendants’ attorney to appear and show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt for repeated failures to comply with the Business Court Rules and orders of the Court. Following the show cause hearing, the Court determined, in its inherent discretion, that while the attorney’s conduct did rise to the level of criminal contempt, to instead sanction the attorney pursuant to Rule 11, to publicly censure and admonish the attorney, to refer the attorney to the North Carolina State Bar for appropriate proceedings, and to order the attorney to pay the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with his improper conduct. The Court also granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the Defendants.
*******
Implus Footcare, LLC v. Vore, 2026 NCBC Order 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2026) (Davis, J.)
Key Terms: motion for appointment of discovery referee; discovery disputes; Rule 53
Plaintiff sought appointment of a discovery referee to resolve pending or anticipated discovery disputes on the grounds that the disputes constitute long or complicated accounts pursuant to Rule 53(a)(2)a. Defendants did not consent to the appointment of a discovery referee and the Court determined that none of Rule 53’s compulsory appointment of referee provisions applied based on the present record and denied the motion.
*******
Lexington Ins. Co. v. State of N.C., 2026 NCBC Order 3 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2026) (Houston, J.)
Key Terms: pro hac vice admissions; sua sponte; courtroom attire; signature block; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84–4.1
The Court sua sponte issued this order to memorialize its instructions to counsel regarding out-of-state attorneys’ appearances and pro hac vice admissions. The Court noted that numerous out-of-state attorneys have appeared in this case either through filings or at hearings without having been admitted, or even filed motions to be admitted, pro hac vice. The Court reminded the out-of-state attorneys, and local counsel, of the statutory requirements to be admitted pro hac vice, to caution against the use of “pro hac vice forthcoming” disclaimers on signature blocks, and to remind counsel of appropriate courtroom attire and decorum during all court proceedings including remote hearings. The Court ordered all attorneys not licensed in North Carolina to submit pro hac applications within seven days or to otherwise file certifications confirming they do not intend to seek such admission and motions to withdraw any such appearances.
To subscribe, email aoldfield@rcdlaw.net
The information in this article is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.