Summary
The North Carolina Business Court denied AGA Stucco, LLC’s motion for summary judgment and its motion to accept late filings as timely. The court held that AGA failed to comply with required parallel filing procedures, missed the dispositive-motion deadline, and failed to file a proper supporting brief. The court also concluded that Rules 59 and 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Business Court Rules 7.10 and 7.11 did not provide a basis for the requested relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether AGA Stucco's summary-judgment motion should be denied or disregarded because it was not timely and properly filed under the Business Court Rules and the case management order.
- Whether AGA Stucco was entitled under North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, or Business Court Rules 7.10 or 7.11, to have its late filings deemed timely.
- Whether the circumstances constituted excusable neglect warranting an enlargement of time under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).
Holdings
- A summary-judgment motion may be denied, struck, or disregarded when it is not timely filed through the required Business Court filing system, fails to comply with a case management order, or lacks the required supporting brief.
- Rules 59 and 60 do not provide a basis to deem the filings timely where there is no judgment or order to amend or set aside and no trial has occurred.
- Business Court Rule 7.10 does not provide a basis for the requested relief, and Rule 7.11 may address an untimely brief or supporting material but does not excuse the untimely filing of the underlying motion.
- Counsel's last-minute filing, failure to comply with the separate Alpine filing requirement, and repeated filing errors did not establish excusable neglect warranting relief.
Key quotations
“This requirement applies to briefs and supporting material as well as motions.” (¶ 17)
“The Court has discretion to deny the motion summarily if a required brief is not filed.” (¶ 19)
“by its plain language, it is limited to “a brief or supporting material” and does not provide a basis on which to excuse AGA Stucco’s failure to timely file its motion.” (¶ 35)
Factual background
The Final Amended Case Management Order required all post-discovery dispositive motions to be filed by May 21, 2026, and required parallel filing through both the Business Court's Alpine/eFlex system and the Mecklenburg County Odyssey system. AGA Stucco waited until late in the day to file with Odyssey, submitted the materials after 5:00 p.m., and failed to file its motion and supporting materials with Alpine by the deadline. When it eventually filed on Alpine, it submitted another party's supporting brief and did not file a brief supporting its own motion.
Procedural history
The action was filed on August 25, 2022, and was later reassigned to the Business Court judge on August 28, 2025. A Final Amended Case Management Order required post-discovery dispositive motions to be filed by May 21, 2026 through the Business Court's Alpine/eFlex system and also required parallel filing with the Mecklenburg County Clerk. AGA Stucco filed materials with the Clerk after 5:00 p.m. on May 21, filed in the Business Court six days after the deadline, submitted the wrong supporting brief, and never filed its own supporting brief. The court denied summary judgment and denied the request to accept the late filings as timely.