History
  • No items yet
midpage
218 N.C. App. 311
N.C. Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in June 2010 against UVA, Adkins, Schatzman, Roach, Travelers/Hartford, and others for false arrest, false imprisonment, battery, malicious prosecution, conversion, conspiracy, and sheriffs’ bond recovery.
  • UVA moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity; other defendants answered or moved later; Hartford substituted for Travelers.
  • Cases were consolidated; amended complaints substituted in December 2010.
  • UVA’s sovereign-immunity dismissal was granted on 17 December 2010; remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on probable cause.
  • Plaintiffs sought a Rule 56(f) continuance to obtain discovery; the court denied the continuance and granted summary judgment in April 2011.
  • Court held that UVA immunity barred claims against UVA, and that Roach, Adkins, Schatzman, and Hartford were entitled to summary judgment on probable cause grounds.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Sovereign immunity bar against UVA UVA liable for violations of rights outside Virginia Sovereign immunity applies; comity allows protection UVA dismissal affirmed on sovereign-immunity grounds
Continuance for discovery prior to summary judgment Discretionary denial harmed ability to prove facts Discretion to deny continuance within proper scope No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Probable cause as bar to claims against Roach, Adkins, Schatzman, Hartford Defendants acted without probable cause Probable cause existed; actions lawful Summary judgment for Roach, Adkins, Schatzman, Hartford affirmed

Key Cases Cited

  • The Rector And Visitors v. Carter, 591 S.E.2d 76 (Va. 2004) (Virginia immunity; comity not duty to waive immunity)
  • Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1979) (States may not be compelled to extend immunity in other states' courts)
  • Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1999) (Immunity between states by comity; not mandatory in other forums)
  • Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331 (N.C. 1988) (Public policy exception to foreign law enforcement recognition)
  • Welch Contract’ng, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t. of Transp., 175 N.C. App. 45, 622 S.E.2d 691 (N.C. App. 2005) (Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) distinctions in immunity and jurisdiction)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Cox v. Roach
Court Name: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Date Published: Feb 7, 2012
Citations: 218 N.C. App. 311; 723 S.E.2d 340; 2012 WL 375914; 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 227; No. COA11-905
Docket Number: No. COA11-905
Court Abbreviation: N.C. Ct. App.
Log In
    Cox v. Roach, 218 N.C. App. 311