212 N.C. App. 564
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- LabCorp and its subsidiary Dianon sued Cindy Caccuro and PLUS Diagnostics for breach, misappropriation, and unfair competition related to a non-solicitation/confidentiality regime.
- Caccuro, a LabCorp employee in Pennsylvania, allegedly developed LabCorp client relationships in the Philadelphia area while receiving NC-based compensation.
- Plaintiffs alleged Caccuro breached the Non-Solicitation Agreement and two compensation plans after leaving LabCorp for PLUS Diagnostics.
- Plaintiffs claimed Caccuro retained LabCorp confidential materials and solicited LabCorp clients, including one key account, on behalf of PLUS.
- Plaintiffs alleged a June 2009 incident where Caccuro posed as a LabCorp customer to obtain confidential LabCorp information to aid PLUS Diagnostics.
- Caccuro, a Pennsylvania resident, and PLUS Diagnostics moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion, and Caccuro appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NC long-arm § 1-75.4(5)(d) supports jurisdiction. | LabCorp asserts checks were shipped from NC; Caccuro directed payment. | Argues no out-of-state shipment directed by Caccuro. | Yes; long-arm § 1-75.4(5)(d) applies. |
| Whether the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process (minimum contacts). | Caccuro purposefully availed NC through NC-based contracts and employment. | Contacts were insufficient or circumstantial and not purposefully availing. | Yes; minimum contacts satisfied for specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether coercive considerations or NC interest override due process concerns. | NC has strong interest in protecting NC-based contracts and residents. | NC forum not convenient for Caccuro; other factors may weigh against jurisdiction. | NC's interest and forum convenience support jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry Bekaert & Holland v. Brown, 99 N.C.App. 626 (1990) (liberal construction of long-arm; payment sent from NC after defendant demanded money)
- Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Indus. Corp., 318 N.C. 361 (1986) (substantial contractual connection supports minimum contacts)
- Century Data Systems, Inc. v. McDonald, 109 N.C.App. 425 (1993) (contracts in NC; paychecks, training, and administration linked to NC operations)
- Banc of Am. Secs. LLC v. Evergreen Int'l Aviation, Inc., 169 N.C.App. 690 (2005) (long-arm liberal construction; due process review)
- Replacements, Ltd. v. MidweSterling, 133 N.C.App. 139 (1999) (two-step jurisdictional analysis; findings of fact reviewed for support)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability as a component of due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair play considerations in due process)