A North Carolina Business Court has ruled against a motion to set aside a previous dismissal order involving personal jurisdiction issues. The case, Moore v. Brooks, 2026 NCBC 53, affects the plaintiffs, including Kelly F. Moore and others, who are seeking to challenge the dismissal of certain defendants from their lawsuit. This ruling is significant as it clarifies procedural requirements for filing motions in complex business cases.
The dispute centers around a motion filed by the Robinson Defendants, which was dismissed due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argued that the dismissal order should be void because the defendants did not file their motion correctly within the required time frame. The court's decision could impact how future cases are handled in terms of jurisdiction and proper filing procedures.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case include Kelly F. Moore, acting both individually and as executor of the estate of Drue A. Moore, along with Miles Moore, KMC Moore LLC, and Rick Graves. They are suing Robert Scott Brooks and Winthrop Intelligence, LLC, among others. The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in 2025, and the case was designated as a complex business case, which was assigned to Judge Matthew T. Houston.
The Robinson Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 5, 2025, claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the motion was not filed with the Durham County Clerk of Superior Court until February 24, 2026, which was more than nine months after it was initially filed on the Business Court’s e-filing system. The plaintiffs argued that this delay rendered the motion non-existent and that the court's dismissal order was therefore void.
The Ruling
On June 9, 2026, Judge Matthew T. Houston issued an order indicating that he would likely deny the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the previous dismissal order. The court ruled that the procedural violations by the Robinson Defendants did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion. The judge stated, "The Court’s Order and Opinion resolving the Robinson Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion is not null or void."
The court noted that the plaintiffs had been aware of the motion and had the opportunity to respond, thus they were not materially prejudiced by the defendants' failure to file properly. The judge emphasized that the issues raised were primarily technical and did not affect the overall jurisdiction of the case.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for how personal jurisdiction cases are handled in North Carolina's Business Court. It reinforces the idea that procedural missteps, particularly in filing motions, do not automatically void a court's ability to rule on substantive issues. The court's decision indicates that as long as the parties are aware of the motions and have the opportunity to respond, the court may still exercise its jurisdiction.
Additionally, this case sets a precedent for future complex business cases, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance while also allowing for judicial discretion in handling technical violations. The ruling suggests that courts may prioritize the resolution of disputes on their merits over strict adherence to procedural rules.
What's Next
The plaintiffs have already perfected their appeal of the court's dismissal order to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. It remains to be seen how the higher court will address the procedural issues raised in this case and whether they will uphold the Business Court's ruling.