Birtha v. Stonemor, North Carolina, LLC
220 N.C. App. 286
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege grave-site misplacements and record-keeping failures at York Memorial Cemetery affecting decedents in multiple families.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on 18 June 2007, asserting negligence, breach of contract, fraud, fraud upon the public, and unfair and deceptive trade practices against SCI and related Stonemor entities.
- SCI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; other defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court granted Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) dismissals on 9 July 2010; Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
- Plaintiffs argue continuing-wrong and discovery-rule tolling; Defendants contend limitations bars apply and that 65-60 does not support negligence per se; court addresses each contention and ultimately affirms dismissal.
- Court affirmance covers personal jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and multiple contract/fraud/UDTP claims; only Mr. Grier’s negligence claim was conceded not time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over SCI | SCI basis under long-arm statute insufficient | No purposeful minimum contacts by SCI in NC | No jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Statute of limitations on negligence claims | Continuing-wrong tolls and discovery rule save claims | Absence of continuing violation and discovery rule applicability; most claims barred | Claims, except Grier’s, barred; continuing-wrong and discovery rule not applicable |
| Breach of contract claims | Breach of burial contracts; record-keeping failure | Statute of limitations and lack of contract-specific terms | Dismissal affirmed; most claims time-barred and no valid contract breach stated |
| Fraud and fraud upon the public | Allegations show intentional misrepresentations | Fraud claims not properly pleaded with particularity; fraud upon the public not recognized | Fraud per se rejected; common-law fraud claims inadequate under Rule 9(b) paradigms |
| Unfair and deceptive trade practices (UDTP) | Defendants’ conduct constitutes UDTP under 75-1.1 | Insufficient contract breach and lack of aggravating circumstances | UDTP claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Banc of Am. Secs. LLC v. Evergreen Int'l Aviation, Inc., 169 N.C.App. 690 (2005) (review standards; vacuity of findings under Rule 52(a) when no facts)
- Golds v. Central Express, Inc., 142 N.C.App. 664 (2001) (prima facie statutory basis for personal jurisdiction required)
- United Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. 510 (1979) (minimum-contacts analysis; purposeful availment)
- Harrold v. Dowd, 149 N.C.App. 777 (2002) (statute of limitations accrual; discovery rule limitations)
- Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F. Supp. 355 (1997) (negligence per se elements; statutory duty)
- Terry v. Terry, 302 N.C. 77 (1981) (pleading fraud with time/place/content; content requirements for Rule 9(b))
- Feibus & Co. v. Godley Construction Co., 301 N.C. 294 (1980) (discovery rule and accrual principles in fraud)
- Claggett v. Wake Forest Univ., 126 N.C.App. 602 (1997) (breach-of-contract pleading requirements)
- Murray v. Aircraft Corp., 259 N.C. 638 (1963) (negligence; statute-of-limitations baseline)
- Isbey v. Cooper Companies, Inc., 103 N.C.App. 774 (1991) (fraud pleading; Rule 9(b) particularity)
- Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Summit Cos., 160 N.C.App. 647 (2003) (UDTP interplay with contract claims)
- Eastover Ridge, L.L.C. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 139 N.C.App. 360 (2000) (treatment of contracts vs. torts; UDTP context)