An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 17 October 2006
RODGERS INVFOR LTD.,
LEO INGHAM, VICTOR GAMBLE,
PAUL LONGHURST, TRINITY COURT
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order entered 8 July 2005 by
Judge Albert Diaz in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Cross-
appeal by defendants from orders entered 11 March 2005 and 31
October 2005 by Judge Albert Diaz in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 August 2006.
Vann Law Firm, P.A., by Christopher M. Vann, for plaintiff
Smith Moore, LLP, by Alan W. Duncan, Manning A. Connors, and
Heather H. Wright, for defendant-appellees, cross-appellants.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant Victor
Gamble (Gamble) and defendant Paul Longhurst's (Longhurst)
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Gamble and
Longhurst cross-appeal from an order deeming service of the
proposed record timely and from an order entered denying their
motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. We affirm.
Plaintiff Edward Rodgers (Rodgers) was a resident of South
Carolina. Defendants Leo Ingham (Ingham) and Gamble were
directors of defendant Trinity Court Management, Ltd. (Trinity
Court), a corporation chartered in the Isle of Guernsey. Gamble
was a resident of the Isle of Guernsey. Longhurst was a resident
of the Isle of Guernsey and an employee of Trinity Court.
Phillip Hegg (Hegg), an attorney and resident of Charlotte,
North Carolina, was retained by Trinity Court as its representative
in North Carolina. Rodgers claimed Hegg contacted him about an
investment opportunity with Trinity Court and that defendants
guaranteed the safety of their principal in the investment.
Subsequently, Rodgers transferred $1.4 million to Trinity Court for
investment purposes. Rodgers alleged, thereafter, that his
investment principal suffered a total loss.
On 30 August 2004, Rodgers and Rodgers Invfor Ltd. filed suit
against Ingham, Gamble, Longhurst, and Trinity Court seeking
damages for their losses.
(See footnote 1)
After the suit was filed, Gamble and
Longhurst filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper service. Affidavits were submitted and
a hearing occurred. On 11 March 2005, the trial court denied the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss for insufficient serviceof process. On 8 July 2005, the trial court granted Gamble and
Longhurst's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
but denied Ingham's.
On 5 August 2005, Ingham filed a notice of appeal.
(See footnote 2)
August 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the order
granting Gamble and Longhurst's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. On 18 August 2005, Gamble and Longhurst
filed a cross notice of appeal from the earlier order denying their
motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process.
On 26 August 2005, Ingham filed a motion for an extension of
time up to and including 10 October 2005 to serve his proposed
record on appeal because he needed additional time in which to
prepare the record because he claimed he had engaged in ongoing
settlement discussions. Ingham's motion stated that counsel for
all parties consented to it and an order granting the motion was
entered 26 August 2005. Subsequent to the trial court's order
entered 26 August 2005, plaintiffs' counsel stated in a motion to
deem service timely it became apparent that Ingham would not
continue his appeal as a result of a tentative settlement.
Therefore, plaintiffs' counsel prepared the proposed record on
appeal and served it on defendants. On 17 October 2005, plaintiffs
filed a motion to deem the service of the proposed record timely. On 18 October 2005, Gamble and Longhurst filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure asserting that plaintiffs' proposed record on appeal was
not served timely. On 31 October 2005, the trial court entered an
order finding plaintiff's service of the proposed record timely,
and denying Gamble and Longhurst's motion to dismiss. Finally, on
7 November 2005, Gamble and Longhurst filed a further cross notice
of appeal from an order filed 31 October 2005 which denied their
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal.
A companion case involving different plaintiffs but the same
defendants was filed in Mecklenburg County. An appeal and cross-
appeal were filed therefrom in which the legal issues and material
facts are identical to the instant case. Therefore, the decision
of Robbins v. Ingham
, (No. COA05-1567), ___ N.C. App. ___, ___
S.E.2d ___ (filed 17 October 2006), is controlling in the instant
case, and we therefore affirm.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
A companion case was filed involving different plaintiffs
and the same defendants, Robbins v. Ingham
, (No. COA05-1567), ___
N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (filed 17 October 2006). The legal
issues and material facts of that case and the instant case are
The actual notice of appeal was not included in the record
on appeal, but was referred to in a consent motion for extension
of time to file the record on appeal filed 26 August 2005 by
Ingham. It was also referenced in defendant cross-appellants'
brief and defendants note it is uncontested that Ingham filed his
notice of appeal on 5 August 2005.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***