Greenhaus v. Goldstein, 25-783

Background

Mrs. Greenhaus briefly dated Goldstein in 2004 or 2005 in New Jersey, but Plaintiffs moved to North Carolina in 2014 and live in Wake County. 1
Plaintiffs alleged Goldstein began sending thousands of harassing, obscene, and pornographic communications to them and people connected to them in North Carolina starting in 2022. 2
Mrs. Greenhaus sought a domestic violence protective order, and Mr. Greenhaus sought a no-contact order based on stalking or nonconsensual sexual conduct. 3
Goldstein was served in Texas, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and submitted an affidavit stating he was a Texas resident who had never been to North Carolina. 4
After a hearing, the trial court denied the Rule 12(b)(2) motions and concluded it had personal jurisdiction over Goldstein. 5
On appeal, Goldstein challenged the standard of proof, the findings of fact, the long-arm statute ruling, and due process minimum contacts. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard of proof applied on the Rule 12(b)(2) motion? 7	Greenhauses: prima facie standard applied because Goldstein’s affidavit did not contradict their allegations.	Goldstein: evidentiary hearing required preponderance of the evidence.	Prima facie standard applied; no material factual dispute existed. 8
Did the trial court need factual findings? 9	Greenhauses: no factual conflict required independent findings.	Goldstein: findings were improper recitations and legal conclusions.	No reversible error; de novo review controlled because facts were undisputed. 10
Did the long-arm statute authorize jurisdiction? 11	Greenhauses: Goldstein’s North Carolina-directed messages and food orders were solicitations.	Goldstein: he did not “solicit” in North Carolina.	Yes; the communications were solicitations under the statute. 12
Did Goldstein have minimum contacts with North Carolina? 13	Greenhauses: his repeated, targeted communications to North Carolina were extensive and suit-related.	Goldstein: his contacts were insufficient for due process.	Yes; exercising jurisdiction satisfied due process. 14
Should the orders be affirmed? 15	Greenhauses: the trial court correctly denied dismissal.	Goldstein: the orders should be reversed.	Affirmed. 16

Key Cases Cited

Hardin v. York Memorial Park, 221 N.C. App. 317 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (appellate review of personal jurisdiction findings is for competent evidence 17)
Treadaway v. Payne, 279 N.C. App. 664 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021) (if only legal questions are presented, review is de novo 18)
Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC, 381 N.C. 692 (N.C. 2022) (defines specific personal jurisdiction 19)
Banc of America Securities LLC v. Evergreen International Aviation, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 690 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (describes Rule 12(b)(2) procedural postures and the prima facie standard 20)
Torres v. City of Raleigh, 288 N.C. App. 617 (N.C. Ct. App. 2023) (recognizes a fourth posture and evidentiary-hearing preponderance standard 21)
Deer Corp. v. Carter, 177 N.C. App. 314 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (evidentiary hearing with competing evidence requires fact-finding by preponderance 22)
Bruggeman v. Meditrust Acquisition Co., 138 N.C. App. 612 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) (when defendant submits counter-evidence, complaint allegations are not controlling 23)
Cameron-Brown Co. v. Daves, 83 N.C. App. 281 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986) (findings are triggered when affidavits materially conflict 24)
Data General Corp. v. County of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (uncontroverted jurisdictional allegations are taken as true 25)
Mucha v. Wagner, 378 N.C. 167 (N.C. 2021) (preservation limits on raising long-arm issues on appeal 26)
Cooper v. Shealy, 140 N.C. App. 729 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) (emails and calls can constitute solicitation under the long-arm statute 27)
Fran’s Pecans, Inc. v. Greene, 134 N.C. App. 110 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (sets out the minimum-contacts factors 28)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts must satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice 29)
Schaeffer v. SingleCare Holdings, LLC, 384 N.C. 102 (N.C. 2023) (after affidavits and documentary evidence, jurisdiction must be shown by preponderance of the evidence 30)
State ex rel. Stein v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 382 N.C. 549 (N.C. 2022) (preponderance standard applies when evidence and affidavits are submitted 31)