Christenbury Eye Ctr., P.A. v. Medflow, Inc. , 246 N.C. App. 237 ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-1120
Filed: 15 March 2016
Mecklenburg County, No. 14 CVS 17400
CHRISTENBURY EYE CENTER, P.A., Plaintiff,
v.
MEDFLOW, INC. and DOMINIC JAMES RIGGI, Defendants.
Appeal by plaintiff from order and opinion entered 23 June 2015 by Judge
James L. Gale in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
24 February 2016.
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, by Frederick M. Thurman, Jr., for plaintiff-
appellant.
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Fitz E. Barringer and Douglas M.
Jarrell, for defendant-appellee Medflow, Inc.
Moore & Van Allen PLLC, by Benjamin P. Fryer and Nader S. Raja, for
defendant-appellee Dominic James Riggi.
DAVIS, Judge.
Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. (“Christenbury”) appeals from the trial court’s
order and opinion granting the motions of Medflow, Inc. (“Medflow”) and Dominic
James Riggi (“Riggi”) (collectively “Defendants”) to dismiss Christenbury’s claims for
breach of contract and unfair trade practices pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North
CHRISTENBURY EYE CTR., P.A. V. MEDFLOW, INC.
Opinion of the Court
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. After careful review, we dismiss Christenbury’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Factual Background
Christenbury is a professional association located in Charlotte, North Carolina
that offers ophthalmology and ophthalmic services. Medflow is a software company
that develops customized enhancements to medical records management software for
medical practices and was formed by Riggi in January of 1999.
In late 1998 or early 1999, Christenbury hired Riggi to develop a customized
medical records management software platform for use in its practice. Riggi
subsequently formed Medflow, which worked with Christenbury to customize and
enhance a platform to suit the practice’s specific needs. Christenbury paid Medflow
in excess of $200,000.00 for the completed software platform and retained all rights
to the finished product.
On 20 October 1999, Christenbury and Medflow entered into a written
Agreement Regarding Enhancements (“the Agreement”) pursuant to which
Christenbury agreed to assign its rights to the software platform and any subsequent
enhancements made thereto by Medflow in exchange for (1) a ten percent royalty for
all fees received in connection with the platform’s resale; and (2) a minimum yearly
royalty of $500.00 for the first five years after the Agreement was executed. The
Agreement further obligated Medflow to “provide Christenbury with a written report
-2-
CHRISTENBURY EYE CTR., P.A. V. MEDFLOW, INC.
Opinion of the Court
on a monthly basis which will include a detailed description of the fees received . . .
during the prior month, along with payment to Christenbury of all corresponding fees
due with respect to such charges for that prior month” and prohibited Medflow from
selling the platform or any enhancements thereto in North Carolina or South
Carolina without Christenbury’s prior written consent.
On 22 September 2014, Christenbury filed a verified complaint in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court against Medflow and Riggi alleging, inter alia, that they had
breached the Agreement by further developing and reselling the platform to other
ophthalmological practices without paying any royalties to Christenbury. On 29
October 2014, an order was entered designating the case as a mandatory complex
business case in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-45.4(b), and the case was
assigned to the Honorable James L. Gale of the North Carolina Business Court (“the
Business Court”).
On 21 November 2014, Riggi filed a motion to dismiss Christenbury’s
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. Medflow filed a similar motion to dismiss on 1 December 2014.
A hearing on Defendants’ motions was held before Judge Gale on 5 March
2015. On 23 June 2015, Judge Gale entered an order and opinion granting
Defendants’ motions and dismissing Christenbury’s action with prejudice.
Christenbury filed a written notice of appeal on 16 July 2015.
-3-
CHRISTENBURY EYE CTR., P.A. V. MEDFLOW, INC.
Opinion of the Court
Analysis
Before we can address the merits of the substantive issues raised by
Christenbury, we must first determine whether we possess jurisdiction over the
appeal. See Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure, 191 N.C. App. 386, 390, 663 S.E.2d 320, 322
(2008) (“If an appealing party has no right of appeal, an appellate court on its own
motion should dismiss the appeal even though the question of appealability has not
been raised by the parties themselves.” (citation, quotation marks, and brackets
omitted)). For the reasons set out below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal.
In 2014, our General Assembly enacted Chapter 102 of the 2014 North
Carolina Session Laws, which, among other things, amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27
so as to provide a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a final judgment
of the Business Court. See 2014 N.C. Sess. Laws 621, 621, ch. 102, § 1. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) now provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court in any
of the following cases:
....
(2) From any final judgment in a case designated as
a mandatory complex business case pursuant to G.S.
7A-45.4 . . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) (2015) (emphasis added).
-4-
CHRISTENBURY EYE CTR., P.A. V. MEDFLOW, INC.
Opinion of the Court
This statutory provision clearly mandates that appeals from final judgments1
rendered in the Business Court be brought in the North Carolina Supreme Court and
not in this Court.2 Therefore, the only remaining question is whether the 2014
amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) apply to the present appeal.
The effective date of the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) was
1 October 2014. See 2014 N.C. Sess. Laws 621, 629, ch. 102, § 9 (“Section 1 of this act
becomes effective October 1, 2014, and applies to actions designated as mandatory
complex business cases on or after that date.”). The present case was designated as
a mandatory complex business case on 29 October 2014. Therefore, this case is, in
fact, governed by the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2). Accordingly,
we lack jurisdiction over Christenbury’s appeal, and as a result, the appeal must be
dismissed. See Hous. Auth. of City of Wilmington v. Sparks Eng’g, PLLC, 212 N.C.
App. 184, 187, 711 S.E.2d 180, 182 (2011) (“A jurisdictional default precludes the
appellate court from acting in any manner other than to dismiss the appeal.” (citation,
quotation marks, and ellipses omitted)).
Conclusion
1 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a), as amended, also provides that certain interlocutory orders
entered by the Business Court are likewise directly appealable to the Supreme Court. N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 7A-27(a)(3).
2 We note that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 was amended once again in 2015. See 2015 N.C. Sess.
Laws 166, 166, ch. 264, § 1.(b). However, the 2015 amendments have no bearing on the jurisdictional
issue currently before us.
-5-
CHRISTENBURY EYE CTR., P.A. V. MEDFLOW, INC.
Opinion of the Court
For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
Judges ELMORE and HUNTER, JR. concur.
-6-