*1 IN THE OF APPEALS COURT FOOTS, PLLC v. JACOBS HANNAH (2003)] N.C. [158 anyone feelings than Debra. Debra made known his other or essence, sexual inter- In claim rests on evidence of occasions, approximately two weeks occurring on one or two course parties separated.4 before intercourse, itself, in and of
I evidence sexual would hold the of punitive damages to allow the was insufficient to submission affections. Because the verdict jury in the for alienation of claim punitive damages alienation of affec- the issues for sheet combined remand for a conversation, I would reverse and tions criminal punitive damages for conversation. trial on issue of criminal new HAGAN, ADAMS, KLEEMEIER, PLLC, v. ROBERT HANNAH & BORN, QUELLER JACOBS and DAVID IRA JACOBS ELLIOT Defendants
No. COA02-789 (Filed 2003) 17 June legal representation Jurisdiction— contacts — —minimum lack dismissing, did err based on trial court plaintiff firm’s personal jurisdiction, law breach of contract and quantum out of defendants’ arising meruit action nonresident plaintiff pay legal performed for services for alleged failure to plaintiff’s appeal, (1) unsolicited letters defendants on because: upon expressly representation conditioned plaintiff’s financial do not estab- agreement defendant’s terms representa- implied legal of an contract for lish existence responded letters tion defendants neither to these nor when any any plaintiff money; in the absence of evidence (2) sent implied plaintiff and defend- express of an contract between recovery meruit; ants, plaintiff right quantum has plaintiff’s allegations consist of a recitation of bulk activity part unilateral insufficient establish minimum contacts.
Judge dissenting. Wynn engaged and Debra in sexual 4. There some evidence defendant inter- separated, they However, once and Debra but before divorced. course after Beck, may Pharr v. damages post-separation not recover conduct. (2001) (in affections, an action for alienation may spouse damages post-separation conduct). not recover APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF FOOTS, KLEEMEIER, HAGAN, ADAMS, *2 20 March 2002 order entered by plaintiff-appellant from Appeal in County Superior Heard Court. Burke in Guilford Judge L. Todd February 2003. Appeals the Court of S. Fonts, by J. Alexander Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah
Adams, Barrett, plaintiff-appellant. Caleigh H. Harwell, Jr., and Harwell, P.A., by Fred R.
Davis & Queller and Ira Bom. Evans, defendants-appellees David LEVINSON,Judge. Fouts, Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & firm of (law
Plaintiff appeals granting an order ‘Adams, Kleemeier’) from hereafter Queller plain- Born) and Ira to dismiss (David defendants motion personal jurisdiction. We affirm. for lack of tiff’s suit Queller, and as follows: Born pertinent facts are summarized named in New Florida, are two of eleven defendants residents of both 5:97-CV-126-BR(2) Jacobs, al., NY, LLC v. Robert et Horizon of litigation, the New Horizon defendants During the course of (EDNC). LLP, at that time had Boggs, Patton hired the law firm of and D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Raleigh and Washington, in offices McCaffrey attorneys Read Greensboro, Boggs Carolina. Patton North the Greensboro office, Hedges and Steven Washington of the Raleigh, trial, in in New Horizon conducted office, participated July, 1999,judgment against was returned In mid North Carolina. amount of district court in federal New Horizon defendants verdict, Boggs Patton closed A after the $21,000,000.00. week McCaffrey Boggs with the Patton remained North Carolina offices. firm joined law D.C., Hedges while Greensboro Washington, office Kleemeier, plaintiff herein. Adams, Horizon and the New Boggs between Patton
The contract
appeal. Following the
representation on
not include
defendants did
Horizon
of record for the New
trial,
Boggs remained counsel
Patton
McCaffrey
July
wrote
November,
1999. On 29
until
defendants
Boggs
left Patton
him that
had
Bom and informed
defendant
July and October
law firm. Between
working for a different
and was
Queller
unanswered
several
defendants Bom
Hedges sent
hire
Adams, Kleemeier, proposing that defendants
letters on behalf of
suggesting various
appellate representation and
provide
plaintiff to
However,
indicates
the record
payment arrangements.
terms and
rep-
Appeals,
were
appeal
the 4th Circuit Court
Miller, Cassidy,
attorneys
other law firms:
from three
resented
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
Lewin, L.L.P., Washington,
Smith,
Larroca &
D.C. (‘Miller, Cassidy’);
Helms,
Moore, Raleigh,
(‘Smith,
Mullis &
Helms’);
Blanchard,
Miller, P.A., Raleigh,
Jenkins &
N.C. See New Horizon Jacobs,
(4th
denied,
NY LLC v.
personal jurisdiction, the trial court committed reversible error. disagree. power
“Jurisdiction has been defined as ‘the to hear and to deter- legal controversy; inquire mine a facts, apply law, into the the ” judgment[.]’ High to render and enforce a Pearce, 266, v. 220 N.C. 271, 108, 17 S.E.2d 112 (1941) (quoting McIntosh, Practice and Procedure, 5) (citations omitted). jurisdiction sec. “Personal refers to ability judicial power the Court’s parties assert over the and bind adjudication.” Japan them its Lighter Corp., Gas Asso. v. Ronson Supp. 219, 257 F. 224 (D.N.J. 1966). A trial ruling court on the defend- challenge personal jurisdiction ant’s may the exercise of (1) either affidavits, decide the matter based on (2) evidentiary or conduct an hearing testimony depositions. witness or 1A-1, N.C.G.S. Rule § 43(e) (2001). way, prove by Either burden is on the “[t]he preponderance of the grounds evidence that exist for the exercise personal jurisdiction of over a Racing, defendant.” Filmar Inc. v. Stewart, App. 668, 141 671, 733, N.C. 541 S.E.2d (2001); Murphy 736 379 THE
IN
COURT OF APPEALS
KLEEMEIER,
HAGAN,
v.
ADAMS,
PLLC
JACOBS
App.
N.C.
376
de
App. 830,
241,
S.E.2d
review
Glafenhein,
v.
110 N.C.
431
disc.
Moreover,
nied,
176,
“when the
(1993).
N.C.
grounds
is a
of fact. Hiwassee
Stables,
App. 24,
Cunningham,
Inc. v.
135N.C.
509 (1976)). jurisdic- personal regarding
In
the existence of
its determination
analysis.
part
tion,
undertakes a two
the trial court
permit
exer-
First,
long-arm statute must
the
the North Carolina
jurisdiction.
personal
personal
Second, the
exercise
cise of
comport
process
the
jurisdiction
the due
clause of
must
the United States Constitution.
Fourteenth Amendment of
pursuant
‘However,
personal jurisdiction
alleged
is
to exist
when
authority
statute,
question
statutory
col-
long-arm
lapses
inquiry
the minimum
one
defendant has
into
—whether
process.’
necessary
requirements
due
to meet the
contacts
671,
App.
(quoting
N.C.G.S. (2001), § 1-75.4 North “long-arm statute,” Carolina’s con- jurisdiction fers case, plaintiff over non-residents. In the instant did complaint. not reference G.S. However, § 1-75.4 its failure to “[t]he plead particulars jurisdiction long fatal to the claim so alleged permit jurisdiction the facts the inference of under the statute.” Computational Williams v. Institute Studies, 85 N.C. 177, appeal, plaintiff On argues statutory authority for the assertion of exists 1-75.4(5), which, pertinent under N.C.G.S. part, § confers jurisdiction on actions:
a. Arising] promise, anywhere out of a made to the or party to some third benefit, by for the the defendant perform pay services within this State or to for services to be performed plaintiff; this State Arisfing] actually b. performed out of services . .. for the defend- ant performance within this State if such within this State was authorized or ratified . . . defendant^] 1-75.4(5)(a) N.C.G.S. (b) (2001). § Plaintiff alleges that it performed legal defendants, services for and that defendants ei promised ther pay authorized or for these services. We conclude plaintiff has asserted support statutory sufficient facts to a basis for personal jurisdiction the exercise of over defendants. We next con sider whether minimum contacts consistent with prin constitutional ciples exist.
“The Due Process Clause of the operates Fourteenth Amendment power to limit the personam jurisdiction state to assert in over a non-resident defendant.” Stables, Hiwassee S.E.2d at (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Hall, Columbia v. 408, 413, 466 U.S. L. 80 Ed. 2d (1984)). pivotal inquiry a court’s personal jurisdic determination of whether the exercise of comports process tion with due is whether the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with forum such that the maintenance [the state] of the suit does not offend play ‘traditional notions of fair and sub ” justice.’ stantial Washington, International Shoe Co. v. 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. Meyer, Milliken v. 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L. Ed. (1940)) (citation omitted). *5 addition,
“In Supreme United States Court has noted ‘[t]he two types long-arm jurisdiction: ‘specific jurisdiction,’ where the con- troversy arises out of the defendant’s state, contacts with the forum ‘general jurisdiction,’ controversy where the is unrelated to the 381
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS v. JACOBS PLLC App. N.C. 376 forum, there are ‘sufficient con activities within the but defendant’s ” App. N.C. Wyatt, 151 between the forum and defendant.’ tacts’ Helicopteros, 414, at 165, at 709 466 U.S. 80 (quoting at jurisdiction where 2d at “General exists the defendant has 411). L. Ed. systematic Wyatt, contacts with the forum state continuous and [.]” 165, 710 v. (citing at 565 S.E.2d at Frisella 151 Co., Supp. 644, (E.D. F. 2d 647 La. Ship Cable 181 Transoceanic presence of 2002)). case, In instant does not assert the jurisdiction, turn, we find basis for existence. general therefore, question grounds to the of whether exist for exercise jurisdiction. specific specific jurisdiction party
“North over a when Carolina exercises jurisdiction arising party’s in a exercises suit out of that it Pecans, Greene, within the state.” Fran’s Inc. contacts 110, 647, 114, (1999). 516 650 “To effectuate minimum S.E.2d purposefully contacts, a have acted to avail itself of defendant must State, invoking privileges conducting activities within this thus protection Jarrett, Bates v. the benefits and of our laws.” 135 Shoe, 735, (1999) (citing 736 International 521 319, at L. Ed. 103). U.S. 90 at 326 requirement ‘purposeful that a defendant availment’ ensures solely jurisdiction ‘random,’ into as a
-willnot haled a result be activity party . . . or a third ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘unilateral of another however, proper, the contacts person[.]’ Jurisdiction is where himself that proximately result from actions the defendant a with the forum State. create ‘substantial connection’ 462, 528, King Corp. Rudzewicz, 475, 85 L. Ed. 2d Burger U.S. 770, Magazine, Inc., 465 v. Hustler U.S. Keeton Helicopteros, 417, 774, L. 466 U.S. (1984), 79 Ed. 2d significant Therefore, 2d at contacts considered 413). L. Ed. “[t]he firmly actually by the defendant. It is established generated those relationship activity a who some unilateral of those claim ‘the satisfy requirement of contact with cannot nonresident defendant may . . . Jurisdiction not be manufactured the forum State.’ Corp., Development F.2d Chung v. NANA of others.” conduct Denckla, 253, 2 U.S. (4th Cir.) (quoting Hanson v. 948, L. 2d denied, 479 93 Ed. (1958)), Ed. 2d cert. U.S. L. per- Preliminarily, argues we in its brief that note “Queller part partial made proper because sonal *6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUTS, & v. HANNAH PLLC JACOBS (2003)] [158 payment [plaintiffs] However, plaintiff to in North Carolina.” has Court, argument since an to this retracting submitted exhibit this and stating allegation this earlier was “an inadvertent misstatement.” Accordingly, disregarded plaintiff’s we have earlier statements on any matter, holding respect is our this case not based in on Queller partial pay- the assertion in brief that had amade plaintiff appellate legal ment to for services. argues
Plaintiff on that co-defendant Robert Jacobs [plaintiff], “authorized and behalf directed on of himself and [defend- perfect preserve ants], appeal, appellate rights to all and handle range post-judgment However, wide motions other matters.” flatly affidavits, both defendants contradicted this assertion in their each of which stated that: my any now agent
Robert Jacobs is not and never has been for purpose with associated the New Horizon case. Robert Jacobs now and never has been authorized to deal Adams my Hedges agent Kleemeier or Mr. retain to Adams represent Kleemeier or Mr. to me. documentary evidentiary support
Plaintiff offers no or other of its claim that Robert was Jacobs authorized to contract on behalf of any Hedges’ Nor defendants. does affidavit include reference to Instead, plaintiff behalf acting Robert Jacobs’ of defendants. relies solely upon complaint, plaintiff assertions in verified which con- be an basis, tends must treated as affidavit. On this argues nothing that defendants’ affidavits more than create a factual “do[] dispute, [plaintiff’s] purposes must be resolved favor misapprehends the law [defendants’] [m]otion [d]ismiss.” regard. in this “ complaint may
It is true a ‘verified be as an treated affidavit if (1) it is made on knowledge, (2) sets forth such facts as evidence, affirmatively would be admissible in shows (3) that the ” competent testify Spinks affiant is to the matters stated therein.’ Co., Taylor Taylor 256, 264, v. Richardson 303 N.C. 278 S.E.2d Page Sloan, 697, 705, However, (1972)). plaintiff’s complaint allegations authority regarding Robert Jacob’s act on behalf requirements neither the nor the first third of the rule for affi- “meet[] davits and therefore may Page, not be considered.” N.C. at 194; Choplin, 690 S.E.2d at see also Talbert v. (verified 41 (1979) affidavit that failed to establish that
IN OF APPEALS THE COURT HAGAN, ADAMS, KLEEMEIER, HANNAH competent testify matter asserted had “failed to was an to be considered under Rule requirements affidavit
meet court). the trial Because 56(e)” and thus could not be considered *7 otherwise, any by plaintiff evidence, affidavit or that failed to offer defendants, of this entered into a contract on behalf Robert Jacobs grounds disregarded in our determination whether allegation is personal jurisdiction for the over defendants. exist exercise of subject per- were to argument Plaintiff that defendants bases jurisdiction primarily upon that evidence “sent sonal approximately 20 letters on Adams Kleemeier letterhead Defendants that the acknowledges case.” Plaintiff when New regarding their conveyed ended, not or to trial trial defendants “had made Horizon any and appellate representation^]” also counsel decisions about entirely plain- “continually ignored” defendants and concedes that “repeated attempts propose, negotiate to and exe- frequent tiffs post-trial engagement written with for cute a formal Defendants However, argues on that defend- appellate services[.]” receipt required the “mini- passive these letters constitutes ants’ disagree. between defendants and North Carolina. We mum contact” personal jurisdiction is not created the It is settled law that “ activity plaintiff. who unilateral of those unilateral acts ‘The satisfy a relationship some with nonresident defendant cannot claim ” Kite, v. requirement of with the forum Miller the contact State[.]’ Hanson, 474, 477, (1985) (quoting 665 357 see, Physicians e.g., Allegiant Ed. 1298); 2 L. 2d at U.S. (N.D. F. Sturdy Hosp., Supp. Ga. Services v. Mem. jurisdiction proper defendant “received 1996) (personal not where promotional from before several unsolicited brochures” “finally responding] inquiries”); of Plaintiff’s Covenant Bank to one Cohen, Supp. 52, (D.N.J. 1992) (where F. record Sav. the allegation defendants solicited or initiated con- contains “no that [plaintiff],” Court finds exercise of tact acts, to a nonres- improper, noting “plaintiff’s that unilateral directed defendant, contacts between do create sufficient minimum ident not forum”). present case, it is In the nonresident defendant plaintiff’s were unsolicited. that letters defendants uncontroverted respond plaintiff’s undisputed not equally that defendants did It is appellate that the provide legal services. conclude solicitations to was an in Florida mailing plaintiff of letters to defendants Carolina, and do not directed towards North action made with this State. that defendants constitute contact IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HANNAH PLLC JACOBS personal jurisdiction Plaintiff also asserts existence based on the contents of letters it sent to defendants. Plaintiff contends implied appellate that its letters either established an representation, contract gave an obligation or at least rise on defendants’ part respond. Our examination of the letters no reveals basis for this assertion. self-serving excerpts directs our attention to from these example, plaintiff’s For of August
letters. letter defendant “[y]ou accepted I, [Adams, Born states that have Kleemeier] perform will appeal[.]” the bulk the work New Horizon supporting statement, There is evidence in the record sug- gesting accepted plaintiff’s ever proposed defendant terms of engagement. Indeed, following: the letter also states critically important your
It is that we have financial commitment *8 appeal. [M]y simply appear- to this . . . will not make an firm appeal dependable in ance without a commitment to the payment expenses. . . . the considerable You must fees your bring July 31, account current with Patton Boggs as of 1999. require I Adams, will a substantial retainer . . . Kleemeier. for you experienced I understand that $900,000figure some sticker shock at the by .. history pay demanded Read.. The of slow to lawyers you prior you. hurt Adams, has and will continue to hurt Kleemeier will make not the considerable commitment of appeal you resources to obtain reversal if give on will not us the your financial fuel our to do best on behalf.
(emphasis added). letter, unequivocally Plaintiff’s warns that appeal” it appearance payment “will make an in this absent aof retainer,” properly “substantial is pro- construed as an offer to appellate representation only upon vide receipt depend- “a payment able commitment to the of the considerable Similar fees[.]” appears language other letters included in record. The July McCaffrey states, letter from to defendant Born in rele- part, vant that: will not allow to come in matter the door without
[Plaintiff] [this] keep a retainer. . . . [Hedges] ... involved we need [T]o $900,000.00. . . . This is go as low as we can still receive permission management go from firm forward.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS (emphasis added). plaintiffs This August was followed letter 3of subsequently discussed above. Plaintiff wrote to both defend- September ants on that necessary
it is that we an agreement establish to the terms of representation. . . . request go I retainer with forward appeal $150,000.00. . . . engage- Other terms our require ment are set on the enclosed term sheet. We forth you acceptance acknowledge agreement to [these] copy terms signing the enclosed of this letter and return- ing your same me . . . along contribution [and] required retainer.”
(emphasis added). This September letter makes clear as of 1 agreement plaintiffs had regarding been reached retention appellate September 1999, plaintiff counsel. On 16 again wrote to defendants: my engagement you execute letter forwarded to on
[P]lease
September 1, 1999
return
requested
it to me with the
retainer.
engagement
Wemust establish an
with my new
in order
firm
representation.
me to continue
your
to be
involved
(emphasis
This
added).
was followed on 4 October 1999
letters
from
pertinent part
stating
“I have not
you
my
heard
concerning
proposed
engagement
terms
from
handling
your
(emphasis
added). These unso-
behalf.”
plaintiffs
expressly
represen-
licited letters to defendants
condition
upon
tation
agreement
of defendants
defendants’
finan-
*9
terms,
payment
cial
and their
of a “substantial retainer.” Defendants
rely upon plaintiffs
were entitled to
clear
it
statements that would
permission
management
go
“receive
from firm
to
forward” with-
payment
retainer,
appearance
out
of a
and would “not make an
in this
dependable
payment
without a
commitment” to
of fees. See
Spartan Leasing
Pollard,
App.
455,
v.
101
450,
476,
N.C.
400 S.E.2d
representation
(1991) (“One
479
to whom a definite
has been made is
rely
representation
to
representation
entitled
on that
if is of a
by person
ordinary
to
prudence
character
reasonably
induce action
a
and is
upon.”) (citing
Appliances,
relied
v.
Fox
Southern
264
267,
undisputed
N.C.
Plaintiff further contends that defendants support assertion, plaintiff points [plaintiff’s] To out fied work[.]” IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOOTS, bankruptcy exemption defendants forwarded federal forms to requested when to do so Patton Boggs. The record shows bankruptcy prepared provided that the by, to, forms were defend- Boggs attorneys. ants Patton attorney A Boggs Patton mailed the defendants, accompanied by forms to a letter on Boggs Patton sta- tionary, directing sign defendants to forms to forward them stamped pre-addressed the enclosed envelope. We conclude forwarding that the of these forms does not constitute “authoriza- provide tion” appellate law firm to representation, par- ticularly bankruptcy as the exemption pertain forms did not to their jury from the verdict. reject plaintiff’s also argument that Forman & Zuckerman v. Schupak, App. 62, 503 (1976), S.E.2d almost “involv[es] identical facts” and controlling thus “is Although this case.” both cases address jurisdiction, the issue of the evidence in Schupak sought showed that “defendants out to assist them performance professional services[;] supervised . . . defendants product plaintiff;... work directly participated otherwise [and] in the legal being services performed[.]” Schupak, 66, at pertinent Schupak S.E.2d 506. Because facts in regarding the personal jurisdiction entirely exercise different from those presented on us, the record before the case has little or bearing the decision herein. sum,
In we conclude [plaintiff’s] that “the bulk of allegations con- merely sist activity a recitation part, of unilateral on its which is insufficient to establish minimum contacts.” Time Share Vacation Ltd., Club v. Resorts, Atlantic (3d 735 F.2d 1984). Cir. As expressed by Supreme the South Carolina Court:
Every parties communication between the was initiated [plaintiff.] ... If inquiry the ‘minimum contacts manipu- can be personal jurisdiction lated to create an where in-state resident manufactures contacts between its home forum and nonresi- entity by inducements, dent means own extraterritorial very legal predictability potential then little remains enable primary defendants to structure their conduct with some mini- subject mum assurance to where that will conduct them to suit.’ Time, Inc., 508-09,
Aviation Associates Jet S.C. Corp. (1991) (quoting Wells American v. Sunshine Electronics, Supp. 1121, (D.S.C. 717 F. 1989)). n.3 *11 OF APPEALS IN THE COURT
388
FOUTS,
HAGAN,
ADAMS, KLEEMEIER,
&
PLLC
JACOBS
HANNAH
App.
(2003)]
376
N.C.
[158
presumed finding of
supports the
that the record
conclude
dismissing
case for lack
in its order
this
the trial court
fact made
jurisdiction
“Although
cognizant
we are
personal
over defendants.
of
exercising personal jurisdiction over non
the liberal trend toward
of
‘absolutely
defendants,
minimum
which are
the
contacts
resident
necessary’
and our
for North Carolina
between the defendant
[S]tate
Racing, 141 N.C.
jurisdiction
missing
Filmar
invoke
are
here.”
Leach,
App.
673,
The trial court trial order dismiss- personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court’s plaintiff’s ing action
Affirmed. dissents.
Judge WYNN concurs result. Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON WYNN, dissenting. Judge majority’s holding case, that in disagree I with the
Because absolutely necessary between “minimum which are the the contacts jurisdiction to invoke defendant and our state for North Carolina respectfully missing,” I dissent. analysis required correctly two-part majority the states personal jurisdiction:
determining the existence permit exer- First, long-arm the statute must the North Carolina jurisdiction. personal Second, personal the exercise cise of jurisdiction comport process with due clause of the must the Amendment of the United States Constitution. Fourteenth requirements majority’s of the agree I with the conclusion the However, disagree I long-arm statute have been met. North Carolina process analysis. majority’s with the resolution of due narrowly analysis, majority focuses its lengthy In a inquiry relationship process to the defendants’ due plaintiff excluding related contacts with all defendants’ other requirement action, Indeed, “there is no cause our State. raised, jurisdictional claim is be related to the pursuant to which juris- give personam rise activities of the defendant IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HANNAH Somers, diction.” Hankins v. Corp. Inc., (1979) (quoting Enterprises, Munchak v. Riko Supp. 1366, (M.D.N.C.1973)); also, Corporation
368 F. ETR see Service, Welding Inc., App. 666, v. Wilson S.E.2d 766 (1990) (where this Court activities considered related unrelated *12 per- legal the action in that case to determine a basis whether for in jurisdiction existed). sonam determining personal jurisdiction
“In whether the exercise of comports process, inquiry with due the crucial is whether the defend- ant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the does suit not offend traditional fair notions of play justice. contacts, and generate substantial To minimum the way defendant must have in purposefully acted such a so as avail itself of the privilege conducting state, of activities within the forum invoking protections thus the benefits and of the laws North of Moreover, relationship Carolina. the between the defendant and the reasonably state be anticipate must such that the should defendant being into a Racing, haled North Carolina court.” Filmar Inc. Stewart, App. 668, 671-72, 141 N.C. (2001). S.E.2d 736-37 “The existence of minimum contacts cannot be ascertained rules, mechanical but rather consideration the each of facts of light play justice. case in of traditional notions of fair The factors quantity contacts, quality be considered are (1) (2) of nature and contacts, of the source the and connection of the cause of action contacts, (4) state, to the the interest of the forum and (5) conve- parties.” Long, nience to the Marion v. (1985). case,
In this the several North defendants had contacts with Carolina such that it would not be for them unreasonable to antici- pate Significantly, haled the being into courts of this State. the represent defendants hired two other North law firms to Carolina them in Boggs North Carolina courts. The defendants hired Patton L.L.P.,a law firm with in Raleigh, represent offices Greensboro and trial, During them in the Eastern Carolina. District North this the federal district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction $21,000,000 and the trial in a verdict resulted against attorneys, joined Hedges, defendants. Steven one of the trial law firm after the trial in the Eastern District North Mr. statement, Hedges alleges Carolina and his sworn he handled they appeal. several matters in defendants’ Defendants contend did any appellate Mr. firm hire or the law to handle IN COURT OF APPEALS THE v. MEADOWS STATE firm, they Carolina law Rather, hired another North matters. prosecute Mulliss & Moore to their Smith Helms Raleigh office of prosecution of defend- plaintiff alleges it assisted appeal. including filing a motion handling several matters ants’ statement. preparing filing docketing requirements process are satisfied that the due I would hold law including retaining two By activities this case. their business giving represent underlying on the matters in this State them firms action, “purposefully have them- rise to [availed within privilege conducting activities [North selves] protections of laws.” Carolina], invoking thus benefits also, ETR (1958), see Denckla, 357 U.S. Hanson Service, Inc., App. 666, Welding Corporation v. Wilson S.E.2d 766
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GARY LOUIS MEADOWS No. COA02-734 (Filed 2003) 17 June boy competent five-year-old 1. Witnesses— — by finding not a five- The trial court did abuse discretion boy testify his year-old competent shooting about the years boyfriend her when he was old. The mother and three requirement the witness competency is the sole test duty capable understanding his expressing himself and be Despite par- testify truthfully. regarding assertions defendant’s boy, made it cannot be said that ticular statements result of a rea- court’s determination could have been the soned decision. impression hearsay present
2. sense Evidence— — emotional — necessary content regarding relationship with A murder victim’s statements her pursuant are into evidence a defendant often admitted impression. 8C-1, present 803(3) N.C.G.S. Rule sense § merely revealing recite facts without emotion Statements providing a context for admissible, are not but statements fact expressions of emotion admissible.