Court Rulings

A Tennessee LLC sued one of its members seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and his expulsion as an LLC member. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the defendant from misappropriating, using, or disclosing the LLC's trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order based upon an arbitration provision, a choice of law provision, and a forum selection clause contained in the LLC's operating agreement. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and held that it lacked jurisdiction and venue based on the forum selection clause and that the LLC failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to the arbitration provision. We conclude that Tennessee law governs the operating agreement and affirm the trial court's dismissal of the complaint based upon the arbitration provision. However, we reverse the trial court's holding that it lacked jurisdiction and venue over the LLC's claims for temporary injunctive relief.

Arbitration clause; R.C. 2711.03(A) and (B); hearing. Trial court erred when it denied appellants' motion to compel arbitration without a hearing, despite the parties' failure to request a hearing, where the record reflected that the making of the arbitration agreement was at issue, and the evidence established there was a genuine issue of material fact but was insufficient to rule on the motion without more evidence and/or testimony.

Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to order board of elections to cancel voter registration of county prosecutor based on challenge to prosecutor's county of residence—Board's records did not demonstrate that relator had clear entitlement to outright cancellation of prosecutor's voter registration, and relator's generic request in complaint for "any other relief" was not sufficient to request alternative mandamus relief of ordering board to hold a hearing under R.C. 3503.24(B)—Writ denied.

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, James Andrew DiDomenico, of four counts of rape, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises several issues. First, he contends that the trial court committed the following trial errors: (1) excluding evidence that the victim was dating a former client; (2) admitting cumulative testimony that repeated the victim's account; (3) admitting testimony concerning letters sent by the Defendant's divorce attorneys to the victim; and (4) refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact. He further argues that, even if these alleged errors are individually insufficient to warrant reversal, their cumulative effect deprived him of a fair trial. The Defendant also challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on purportedly newly discovered evidence, as well as the trial court's sentencing determinations. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Rule 12(b)(6) motion; Rule 56 Summary Judgment; Materials outside the pleadings; Facial constitutional challenge; N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-267.1; Fruits of Labor clause.