Larsenv.Susan Rice Truffle Prods. LLC

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINAMay 5, 2015
771 S.E.2d 632 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015)

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 18 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. COA14–1041.

2015-05-05

Karen LARSEN, Mary Jo Stout, Chiara Idhammar, and Christer Idhammar, Plaintiffs, v. SUSAN RICE TRUFFLE PRODUCTS LLC and Susan Rice, Defendants.

H. Gregory Johnson , Asheville and Jane Soboleski , Ferikes & Bleynat, PLLC, for Defendant-Appellants. R. Palmer Sugg , Raleigh and Neil T. Oakley , Robbins May & Rich, LLP, for Plaintiff-Appellees.


Appeal by Defendants from an order entered on 16 June 2014 by Judge James M. Webb in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 4 March 2015. H. Gregory Johnson, Asheville and Jane Soboleski, Ferikes & Bleynat, PLLC, for Defendant–Appellants. R. Palmer Sugg, Raleigh and Neil T. Oakley, Robbins May & Rich, LLP, for Plaintiff–Appellees.
HUNTER, JR., ROBERT N., Judge.


Susan Rice Truffle Products, LLC and Susan Rice (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants' assignments of error and arguments in the present case are similar to those in companion case COA14–1040. In both cases, Defendants argue that the trial court erred in granting Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings. In COA14–1040, Defendants use N.C. Gen.Stat. § 55–16–01 (governing corporate records) to support their argument, whereas in this case, Defendants cite N.C. Gen.Stat. § 57C–3–04 (repealed effective 1 January 2014, formerly governing LLC members' ability to access records).

Defendants' principal brief and reply brief in this case have the same fatal jurisdictional deficiencies as the briefs in the companion case. For the reasons stated in COA14–1040, we dismiss Defendants' appeal as interlocutory.

DISMISSED.

Judges STEPHENS and TYSON concur.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.