Estevez v. C&S Commerce, LLC

Estevez, 2025 NCBC 73 (North Carolina Superior Court North Carolina Business Court 2025) · North Carolina Superior Court, North Carolina Business Court · November 25, 2025 · No. 25CV001966-890

Summary

The North Carolina Business Court grants defendants’ partial Rule 12(b)(6) motion in an action involving alleged breaches of an LLC operating agreement. The court dismisses without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to pierce the corporate veil, finding that the complaint’s allegations of domination and failure to follow the operating agreement were conclusory and insufficient. The court also dismisses the breach of fiduciary duty claim because the operating agreement expressly waived fiduciary duties owed by the manager and majority member to minority members.

Holdings

  1. The complaint did not allege sufficient nonconclusory facts showing that C&S was Clay's mere instrumentality or alter ego, that Clay used control to commit a legally cognizable wrong beyond an alleged contract breach, or that the required veil-piercing factors were present. The request to pierce the LLC's veil was therefore dismissed without prejudice.
  2. Minority members of a North Carolina LLC may contractually waive fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed by a majority member or manager. Because the C&S operating agreement expressly waived and released such claims, the plaintiffs failed to state a fiduciary-duty claim.
  3. The complaint did not plead facts establishing that the operating agreement's fiduciary-duty waivers were illegal, against public policy, unreasonable, or unconscionable. The waivers therefore foreclosed the fiduciary-duty claim.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded facts supporting the equitable remedy of piercing C&S Commerce, LLC's corporate veil.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs stated a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim despite express waivers and releases in the LLC operating agreement.
  3. Whether the operating agreement's fiduciary-duty waivers were invalid as unreasonable, unconscionable, or contrary to public policy.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (23)

  • Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, 371 N.C. 605, 615 (2018)(followed)
  • Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., 372 N.C. 326, 332, 339 (2019)(followed)
  • Christenbury Eye Ctr., P.A. v. Medflow, Inc., 370 N.C. 1, 5 (2017)(followed)
  • Forsyth Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., 336 N.C. 438, 442 (1994)(followed)
  • Oberlin Capital, L.P. v. Slavin, 147 N.C. App. 52, 60 (2001)(followed)
  • Moch v. A.M. Pappas & Assocs., LLC, 251 N.C. App. 198, 206 (2016)(followed)
  • Estate of Hurst ex rel. Cherry v. Moorehead I, LLC, 228 N.C. App. 571, 576 (2013)(followed)
  • Green v. Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 145-46 (2013)(followed)
  • W&W Partners, Inc. v. Ferrell Land Co., LLC, 2018 NCBC LEXIS 52, at *21-25(followed)
  • Gallaher v. Ciszek, 2022 NCBC LEXIS 131, at *33(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…