Summary
The North Carolina Business Court grants The Assurance Group, LLC’s partial motion to dismiss claims brought by Lorainna Passe. The court concludes that Passe’s claims arise from the same transactions or occurrences as claims in a related action and therefore must be asserted as compulsory counterclaims under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a); dismissal is without prejudice to asserting them in that action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Passe's claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as TAG's claims against her in the Shackelford Action and therefore were compulsory counterclaims under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a).
- If the claims were compulsory counterclaims, whether dismissal without prejudice, rather than a stay, was the appropriate remedy.
Holdings
- Passe's claims were compulsory counterclaims because they arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as TAG's claims against her in the Shackelford Action, involved largely the same issues of fact and law and substantially the same evidence, had a logical relationship, and did not require the presence of unavailable third parties.
- Because Passe's claims were compulsory counterclaims that had to be asserted in the Shackelford Action, dismissal of those claims without prejudice was appropriate, leaving Passe free to assert them as counterclaims in that action.
Key quotations
“A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” (¶ 23)
“As a result, the Court concludes that Passe’s claims asserted in the present action must instead be brought as compulsory counterclaims in the Shackelford Action.” (¶ 36)
Factual background
The plaintiffs were former employees or independent contractors of The Assurance Group, LLC, an insurance marketing intermediary. Lorainna Passe worked for TAG and entered into an Independent Agent Agreement containing restrictive covenants; she alleged that TAG later changed the agreement by shortening an automatic-termination period and removing a no-cost-sales-leads obligation, while leaving the restrictive covenants in effect. Passe asserted claims challenging the agreement and seeking statutory and other relief, while TAG separately sued her in the Shackelford Action for breach of the same agreement and related misconduct.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed this action in Randolph County Superior Court on May 22, 2025, and filed a second amended complaint on November 25, 2025. The complaint asserted declaratory, sales-commission, wage-and-hour, and abuse-of-process claims. Defendant later filed an answer and counterclaims in this action and moved to dismiss Passe's claims because they arose from the same transactions or occurrences as claims pending against her in The Assurance Group, LLC v. Shackelford. The Business Court granted the motion and dismissed Passe's claims without prejudice to asserting them as counterclaims in the Shackelford Action.