Rule 2.1 - Designation of Exceptional Civil Cases and Complex Business Cases(a) The Chief Justice may designate any case or group of cases as (a) "exceptional" or (b) "complex business." A senior resident superior court judge, chief district court judge, or presiding superior court judge may ex mero motu, or on motion of any party, recommend to the Chief Justice that a case or cases be designated as exceptional or complex business.(b) Such recommendation for exceptional cases may include special areas of expertise needed by the judge to be assigned and may include a list of recommended judges. Every complex business case shall be assigned to a special superior court judge for complex business cases, designated by the Chief Justice under Rule 2.2, who shall issue a written opinion upon final disposition of the case.(c) Such recommendation shall be communicated to the Chief Justice through the Administrative Office of the Courts.(d) Factors which may be considered in determining whether to make such designations include: the number and diverse interests of the parties; the amount and nature of anticipated pretrial discovery and motions; whether the parties voluntarily agree to waive venue for hearing pretrial motions; the complexity of the evidentiary matters and legal issues involved; whether it will promote the efficient administration of justice; and such other matters as the Chief Justice shall deem appropriate.(e) The Chief Justice may enter such orders as are appropriate for the pretrial, trial, and other disposition of such designated case or cases.N.c. R. Prac. Sup. & Dist. Ct. Civ. P. 2.1
319 N.C. 683; 341 N.C. 737.
Amended June 18, 2024, effective 6/18/2024.In the order amending Rule 2.1, 341 N.C. 737, quotation marks around the word "exceptional" in subsection (a) were deleted without a strikethrough. This change has been treated as inadvertent. Accordingly, "exceptional" appears in this codification with quotation marks.
In the order amending Rule 2.1, 341 N.C. 737, a period after the word "exceptional" in subsection (a) was deleted without a strikethrough, and the word "cases" was inserted into the first sentence of subsection (b) without an underline. These changes have been treated as intentional. Accordingly, the period after "exceptional" does not appear in this codification, but "cases" does.