Raymond v. N.C. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA13-192 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 October 2013 LANGDON B. RAYMOND, Plaintiff, v. Buncombe County No. 08 CVS 4456 NORTH CAROLINA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a North Carolina corporation; SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation; and JOHN MIDGETTE, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 November 2012 by Judge Sharon Tracey Barrett in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 September 2013. Contrivo & Contrivo, P.A., by Frank J. Contrivo, Jr., for plaintiff appellant. Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Kenneth R. Hunt and Robin A. Seelbach, for defendants appellees. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Langdon B. Raymond purports to appeal from the trial court s 2 November 2012 order, which granted defendants -2N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the claim for champerty and maintenance alleged in plaintiff s 14 November 2008 Amended Complaint. which plaintiff The court did not certify the order concedes is interlocutory as immediately appealable pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b). On 21 February 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff s appeal on the grounds that the order from which plaintiff seeks to appeal does not affect a substantial right entitling him to immediate almost-identically-worded review. response In to both his defendants brief and motion, plaintiff fails to identify the substantial right he would lose absent a review prior to a final determination on the remaining claims. See Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 726, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). Because plaintiff has not carried his burden to establish his right to immediate appeal from the trial court s interlocutory order dismissing one of the three claims alleged in his Amended Complaint, see Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) ( [T]he appellant has the burden of showing this Court that the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits. ), we allow defendants motion. Dismissed. -3Judges GEER and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
