WWW.ALIGUS.COM |
||||||||||
|
Monce v. Deas, 05 CVS 4005 |
FILED MARCH 24, 2005 - TERMINATED
WITH FINALITY NOVEMBER 13, 2007 |
Unexpectedly to us, Kevin Monce
withdrew his lawsuit on October 22, 2007. |
Plaintiff: Kevin A. Monce, DVM, DACVIM
Defendants: Nancy G. Deas, Edna E. Deas
Counsel: Michael Crowell, Esq.; Kenneth A. Soo, Esq.
Tharrington, Smith, LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina
Exhibit A: Portion of February 21, 2005 aligus.com home page submitted by Kevin Monce, DVM
Counsel: Hugh Stevens, Esq.; C. Amanda Martin, Esq.
Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, LLP
New practice is Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych, PLLC
Raleigh, North CarolinaExhibit 1: Letter of Reprimand issued October 17, 2001 to Dana R. Jones, DVM, by the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board (NCVMB)
Exhibit 2: Letter of Reprimand issued October 17, 2001 to Kevin A. Monce, DVM, by the NCVMB; Kevin Monce's November 6, 2001 rejection of the Letter of Reprimand
Exhibit 3: Consent Order entered into April 7, 2003 between Kevin Monce and the NCVMB
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on Pleadings - Statute of Limitations
November 3, 2005 Deas Memorandum of Law November 8, 2005 Monce Memorandum of Law January 25, 2006 Order of the Honorable John R. Jolly "... the motion by Defendants for judgment in their favor on the pleadings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12(c), NCRCP, is DENIED."
September 25, 2006 Deas Motion October 21, 2006 Deas Brief November 9, 2006 Monce Motion and Brief November 14, 2006 Deas Supplemental Brief November 29, 2006 Crowell Letter to Judge Fox December 15, 2006 Order of the Honorable Carl R. Fox "... the court determines that both the defendants' motion and the plaintiff's cross-motion should be denied."
Plaintiff's
Motion: "Not Matter of Public Concern"
Defendants' Motion: "Public
Concern and Other Threshold Issues of Law"
January 31, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens April 16, 2007 Monce Motion April 27, 2007 Deas Motion May 31, 2007 Monce Brief June 1, 2007 Deas Brief June 4, 2007 Monce Response June 4, 2007 Deas Response June 7, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens (emphasis added)
1. "Application of the principles set out in those cases to the undisputed facts of this case leads to the legal conclusion that the speech challenged in this lawsuit was addressed to a matter of public concern. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of public concern is denied. Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, partial summary judgment on that issue is entered in favor of the defendants."
2. "There being no discernible legal basis for an award of attorney fees to the plaintiff, summary judgment is entered in favor of defendants on that issue."
3. "In order to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must allege and prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendants published the challenged statements with actual malice -- that is with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard to their truth or falsity. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323. 350 (1974). There is no evidence in the record that the defendants published with actual malice, and plaintiff's counsel acknowledged in open court that he could forecast none. Therefore, summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages is entered in favor of the defendants."
4. "The Court reserves for the trial judge all remaining issues."
July 9, 2007 Monce Notice of Appeal July 25, 2007 Deas Motion August 16, 2007 Monce Response August 20, 2007 Stevens Letter to Judge Stephens August 20, 2007 Order of the Honorable Donald W. Stephens "... the court determines that the motion should be allowed because the order from which the plaintiff is attempting to appeal is interlocutory, does not affect a substantial right, and has not been certified for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; accordingly the "Notice of Appeal" filed by the plaintiff on July 9, 2007 is a nullity. The case shall proceed to trial on the merits."
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |