Bolier & Co. v. Decca Furniture (Usa), Inc.
250 N.C. App. 323
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Bolier & Company, LLC was majority-owned (55%) by Decca USA under a 2003 operating agreement; Plasman retained a 45% interest and served as president until terminated in October 2012.
- After termination, Plasman and his son Barrett remained in Bolier’s offices, opened bank accounts in Bolier’s name, diverted ~ $600,000 in customer payments, and paid themselves at least $62,192.15.
- Decca obtained a federal preliminary injunction (Judge Voorhees, Feb. 27, 2013) barring the Plasmans from acting for Bolier, requiring return of diverted funds within five business days, and imposing safeguards to protect Plasman’s minority rights.
- Plaintiffs filed responses and a supplemental motion seeking additional safeguards but did not move for reconsideration or appeal the federal injunction to the Fourth Circuit within the appeal window.
- The federal court remanded the state-law claims to state court in Sept. 2014. On remand, the state court (Judge Bledsoe) denied Plaintiffs’ request to dissolve or amend the preliminary injunction and granted Decca’s motion to enforce it, ordering Plasmans to pay $62,192.15 plus interest and to provide an accounting.
- Plaintiffs appealed Judge Bledsoe’s order; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the Plasmans failed to timely appeal the federal injunction and did not show a substantial right lost by the state-court enforcement order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal preliminary injunction was immediately appealable | Voorhees’ order was not final because it invited additional safeguard motions | Federal preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable; invitation to seek more conditions did not render order nonfinal | Federal preliminary injunction was appealable; Plaintiffs failed to appeal timely |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ post-order filings tolled the appellate deadline | Plaintiffs’ "Response" and "Supplemental Motion" tolled the 30-day appeal period | Filings did not constitute motions for reconsideration and did not toll the appeal deadline | Filings did not toll the deadline; Plaintiffs needed to file a timely appeal to the Fourth Circuit |
| Whether Judge Bledsoe’s enforcement order independently deprived Plaintiffs of a substantial right | Bledsoe’s order was a separate, appealable deprivation warranting review | Bledsoe merely enforced and quantified the federal court’s prior injunctive directives | Bledsoe’s order only enforced the federal injunction; no substantial right lost to permit interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the $62,192.15 award created a new, appealable monetary obligation | The award was new and independently appealable | The amount merely quantified funds already ordered returned by the federal injunction | The award quantified funds previously ordered returned; not independently appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC, 186 N.C. App. 390 (discusses what constitutes a final judgment)
- Paradigm Consultants, Ltd. v. Builders Mut. Ins. Co., 228 N.C. App. 314 (interlocutory appeal prohibition)
- Russell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 136 N.C. App. 798 (policy against piecemeal appeals)
- Nationsbank Corp. v. Herman, 174 F.3d 424 (federal preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable)
- Heavner v. Heavner, 73 N.C. App. 331 (definition of interlocutory order)
- Gaines v. Long Mfg. Co., 67 S.E.2d 350 (majority control and fiduciary duty to minority)
- Robinson v. Gardner, 167 N.C. App. 763 (substantial-rights standard for interlocutory appeals)