Neeltec Enterprises, Inc. v. Long Where the special referee ordered plaintiff to name two corporations as defendants in place of the individual that the plaintiff named as a defendant in its complaint, the special referee’s order affects a substantial right – the right of a plaintiff to choose its defendant – and it effectively discontinues plaintiff’s suit against the individual defendant, thus making it immediately appealable under S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a).
Bickerstaff v. Prevost The circuit court’s order granting leave for plaintiffs to deposit funds did not establish a post-judgment interest rate; in fact, the order noted that this court would ultimately determine the rate of post-judgment interest.
Burkey v. Noce On a matter of first impression, we rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is not immediately appealable.
Appeal dismissed.
While no S.C. case law concerns the immediate appealability of a denial of dismissal based specifically on forum non conveniens, the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is not generally appealable. An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is also not directly appealable. Additionally, an order denying a motion to change venue is not immediately appealable.
Essex Homes Southeast, Inc. v. CommunityOne Bank, N.A. Even though plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state any claim against the only S.C. defendant named therein, plaintiff timely amended its complaint and added an S.C. defendant against which it does appear to have a claim.
The defendant-bank’s motion to strike the amended complaint is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court is granted.
Barber v. American Family Home Insurance Co. Plaintiff Nancy Barber filed a breach of contract action against the defendant-insurer after the insurer made a check for insurance proceeds payable to both Nancy Barber and Kelly Barber.
Wachovia Bank National Association v. Beane The trial court’s charge and verdict form gave the jury two options: award the defendant-borrowers damages in a specific amount for the plaintiff-bank’s alleged mismanagement of defendants’ securities account (which served as collateral for the loan on which they defaulted) or find no liability and return a verdict for the bank.
Hollis v. Stonington Development, LLC (ex parte Lipscomb) Even though the appellant-developers have not been able to fully comply with the circuit court’s order to stop the discharge of sediment-laden storm water onto respondents’ residential properties, the evidence showed a good faith attempt to do so. Contempt is only proper when a party voluntarily and intentionally disobeys or disregards a court order.
Clifton, LLC v. Tadlock This is a dispute over a lease and the proceeds of a fire insurance policy taken out by the parties pursuant to an alleged oral modification to the lease. As such, plaintiff’s claims are subject to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(1)’s three-year limitations period rather than the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to actions arising out of an interest in land or the 20-year statute of limitations applicable to sealed instruments.
The court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Johnson v. M.I. Windows & Doors, Inc. In a putative class action against a window manufacturer, the manufacturer’s third-party claim against those who designed and built the named plaintiff’s house is not sufficiently derivative of plaintiff’s claim that the windows were negligently designed and manufactured.
The third-party defendants’ motion to sever is granted.
Channel Group, LLC v. Abbott Plaintiffs filed the 30 debt collection actions at issue, and defendants failed to respond. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, but, without addressing plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, the trial court noted that plaintiffs had failed to move for default judgments and dismissed the cases for failure to prosecute, which operated as dismissals with prejudice.
Next Page »
