A North Carolina court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by FS Medical Supplies, LLC against TannerGAP, Inc. and several other defendants. The court ruled that the case was unnecessary due to an ongoing similar case in federal court. This decision affects FS Medical Supplies, which has been embroiled in legal disputes since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
The case, FS Med. Supplies, LLC v. TannerGAP, Inc., was filed on July 2, 2026, in the North Carolina Business Court under docket number 26-CVS-18254. The ruling comes as FS Medical Supplies seeks to resolve claims related to contracts for medical masks during the pandemic. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of the prior pending action doctrine, which prevents multiple lawsuits on the same issue from clogging the judicial system.
Background
FS Medical Supplies, LLC, a Delaware company based in Texas, was founded during the COVID-19 pandemic to source personal protective equipment. The defendants include TannerGAP, Inc. and Tanner Pharma UK Limited, which are pharmaceutical service providers based in Charlotte, North Carolina. The company’s leadership includes Raymond Bourne and his wife, Mary Bourne, who hold significant ownership stakes.
The dispute arose from a series of contracts between FS Medical Supplies and the Tanner Defendants regarding the procurement and distribution of medical masks. Following a breakdown in their relationship, FS Medical Supplies initiated multiple lawsuits against the Tanner Defendants across various jurisdictions. Since March 2021, FS Medical Supplies has filed at least five separate lawsuits against the defendants, which include cases in both state and federal courts.
In the current case, FS Medical Supplies filed its complaint in the North Carolina Superior Court while a related case was still pending in federal court. The plaintiff argued that it wanted to have its claims decided on their merits, despite the existence of ongoing litigation in federal court.
The Ruling
Judge Matthew T. Houston presided over the case and ultimately granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court ruled that the prior pending action doctrine applied, stating, "since there is a prior action still pending in the federal district court sitting within the territorial limits of this state on the same matter between the same parties, the present action is necessarily abated and the suit [is] properly dismissed."
The court emphasized that the parties, subject matter, and issues involved in the current case were substantially the same as those in the prior federal case. Therefore, the court found that continuing with the North Carolina case would be unnecessary and counterproductive.
The court also noted that FS Medical Supplies had conceded that the federal case was pending and involved the same parties and causes of action. This concession played a significant role in the court's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing FS Medical Supplies to pursue its claims in the existing federal litigation.
Impact
The dismissal of FS Medical Supplies' lawsuit has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles between the company and the Tanner Defendants. By reinforcing the prior pending action doctrine, the court has clarified that parties cannot pursue multiple lawsuits on the same issues in different jurisdictions. This ruling aims to streamline the judicial process and reduce the burden on the courts.
Going forward, FS Medical Supplies can still pursue its claims in the federal court where the related case is pending. The court's ruling does not prevent the plaintiff from seeking relief through the existing litigation, but it does emphasize the importance of resolving disputes in a single forum to avoid duplicative efforts.
What's Next
FS Medical Supplies has the option to continue its litigation in the federal court where the related case is pending. The company may also consider its legal strategy in light of this ruling, potentially focusing on the ongoing federal case. There are no indications in the court filing that FS Medical Supplies plans to appeal this decision.