D.V. Shah Corp. v. VroomBrands, LLC

• Docket Number: 351A22
• Decision Date: 15 December 2023
• Parties: D.V. SHAH CORP. v. VROOMBRANDS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and VICTOR OBAIKA
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

1

D.V. SHAH CORP.
v.
VROOMBRANDS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, and VICTOR OBAIKA

No. 351A22

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 15, 2023

Heard in the Supreme Court on 1 November 2023.

Appeal pursuant to N.C. G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 286 N.C.App. 223 (2022), vacating an order entered on 10 June 2021 by Judge Karen Eady Williams in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, and remanding the case.

Miller Austin Law, by Carol L. Austin, for plaintiff-appellant.

David P. Ferrell for defendant-appellees.

RIGGS, JUSTICE.

This appeal asks us to consider whether a trial court reversibly errs when it declines to exercise its discretion to hear oral testimony at a summary judgment hearing under the misapprehension that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure outright prohibit receipt of such testimony. We hold, consistent with our precedents, that a trial court's failure to exercise its discretion under the mistaken belief that no such discretion exists warrants vacatur, and we remand for reconsideration "in the true legal light." Capps v. Lynch, 253 N.C. 18, 22 (1960) (cleaned up). We modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating the trial court's summary

2

judgment order and remanding the case in accordance with our holding.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

Plaintiff sued defendants by verified complaint for breach of a commercial lease in October 2019. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim for fraud through counsel on 1 June 2020, alleging plaintiff fraudulently induced them to enter into the commercial lease. After the entry of several scheduling orders, limited discovery, and the withdrawal of defendants' counsel by consent, plaintiff moved for summary judgment in April 2021 on the claims alleged in its verified complaint.

Plaintiff's summary judgment motion was calendared for and heard on 24 May 2021. By that point unrepresented, Mr. Obaika appeared pro se and requested a continuance; the trial court denied that request for reasons of futility and judicial economy. Mr. Obaika also sought to introduce live testimony in opposition to plaintiff's motion and in support of his counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, but was interrupted by the trial court as follows:

THE COURT: I can't-I can't accept your statements because it's-it's along the lines of, like testimonial. I can't accept that in the context of a summary judgment hearing. It has to be provided to the Court or in response to her affidavit and her documents. It has to be provided by way of an affidavit. And so [that is] why I asked whether an affidavit was submitted

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment for plaintiff on all claims, and defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In a divided decision, a majority of the Court of Appeals vacated the trial

3

...