If you can't read please download the document
NO. _______
TENTH DISTRICT
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS ******************************* IN THE MATTER OF: OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KENNETH C. JOHNSON. ) Defendant, ) ______________________________) AND KENNETH C. JOHNSON. Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF ) NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH ) CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a ) THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, ) LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, ) SANDRA LYNN WOOD, AND ALAN ) FINLAYSON, ) Defendants, ) ______________________________) AND
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION File No.05 CVS 3411
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION File No.08 CVS 3715
-ii-
KENNETH C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v.
) ) ) ) OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF ) NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH ) CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a ) THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, ) LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, ) YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, ) BARBARA B. WEYHER, ESQ.,IN HER) PARTNERSHIP, PROFESSIONAL AND ) INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, DAN J. ) MCLAMB, IN HIS PARTNERSHIP, ) PROFESSIONAL, AND INDIVIDUAL ) CAPACITIES, SEAN T. PARTRICK, ) ESQ, IN HIS, PARTNERSHIP, ) PROFESSIONAL, AND INDIVIDUAL, ) CAPACITIES,CHRISTOPHER M.WEST,) IN HIS PARTNERSHIP,PROFESIONAL) AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, ) Defendants, ) ______________________________)
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION File No.09 CVS 6918
****************************** RECORD ON APPEAL ****************************** INDEX Statement of Organization of Trial Court. . . . Statement of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . Plaintiffs Complaint File No. 08 CVS 3715 [filed 5 March 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . Defendants Letter of Appearance (Notice of Appearance) [served 18 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . [Defendant Finlayson] Motion For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint [filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 28 29
-iiiOrder Extending Time [for Defendant Finlayson] To Answer Complaint [filed 28 MARCH 2008]. .
32
Motion For Extension Time To Answer Complaint [Defendants Oak Health Care and Sandra Woods] [filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Order Extending Time to Answer Complaint [Defendants Oak Health Care and Sandra Wood] [filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 [Plaintiffs] Motion for Entry of Default [as to Defendant Laurel Health Care Company] [filed 11 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Dismiss And Original Answer To Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 14 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . 42 [Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys (FIRST) Motion To Strike Any Patient Information From Plaintiffs Complaint] [filed 14 APRIL 2008]. 44 Defendants [Laurel Health Care Company] Response To Motion For Entry of Default Judgment [filed 21 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . 62 [Plaintiffs] Motion to Strike Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Dismiss And Original Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 22 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Dismiss And Original Answer [filed 29 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Dismiss And Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . 75 [Defendant Laurel Health Care Company] (SECOND) Motion To Strike [Any Patient Information From Plaintiffs Complaint] [filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Defendants Oak Health Care Investors, Wood and Finlaysons Motion To Dismiss And Original Answer To Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 [Defendants Oak Health Care Investors, Wood and Finlayson] Motion To Strike [Any Patient Information From Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
-ivPlaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Dismiss [Complaint] [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Laurel Health Care Companys Motion To Strike [Any Patient Information From Plaintiffs Complaint] [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Oak Health Care, Wood and Finlaysons Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . [Plaintiffs] Amended Complaint File No. 08 CVS 3715 [filed 23 JUNE 2008]. . . . . . . . . . Defendants Amended Motion To Dismiss For Insufficient Service of Process And Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [filed 11 AUGUST 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . Order on Plaintiffs Motions For Entry Of Default, To Strike Defendants Answer, Strike Defendants Amended Motion To Dismiss For Insufficient Service Of Process and Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction AND Defendants Motion To Dismiss For Insufficient Service of Process and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [filed 29 JULY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . Defendants Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Summons And Motion For Costs [filed 11 AUGUST 2008]. [Plaintiffs] Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment [striking summonses] [filed 12 AUGUST 2008]. . [Plaintiffs] Affidavit In Support of Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment [dismissal] [filed 8 SEPTEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . [Plaintiffs] Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment [striking summonses][filed 8 SEPTEMBER 2008]. Order Denying Plaintiffs Rule 59 Motion [filed 9 SEPTEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . Order On Defendants Motion To Strike Summonses And Motion For Costs[filed 9 SEPTEMBER 2008]. [Plaintiffs] Rule 60 Motion For Relief From Judgment Or Order [dismissal] [filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . [Plaintiffs] Amended Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment [of dismissal] filed 5 DEC 2008]. . Plaintiffs Motion To Strike And Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Wood And Finlaysons Motion To Dismiss And In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment
123
126 129 140
166
184 193 235 244 265 267 270 273 277
-v[filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 280 [Plaintiffs] Motion For Ruling On Objection To Order On Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss For Insufficient Service of Process And Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, And Order On Defendants Motion to Strike Summonses And Motion For Costs [filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . [Plaintiffs] Brief In Support of Motion For Ruling On Objection To Order On Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss For Insufficient Service of Process And Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, And Order On Defendants Motion to Strike Summonses And Motion For Costs [filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . Order [Denying Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions] [Judge Baddour] [dismissing Oak Health and Laurel Health care [filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . Order [Denying Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions] [Judge Baddour] [dismissing Wood and Finlayson [filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . [Plaintiffs] Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgments (Judge Alan Baddour) Rule 59 [filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . [Plaintiffs] Rule 63 Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgments Pursuant To Rule 59 [filed 15 JULY 2009]. . . . . . . . . . . Order On Plaintiffs Rule 63, Rule 59 And Rule 60 Motions On Judge Spencers July 25, 2008 And August 29, 2008 Orders [filed 10 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . Order[s] On Extra-Judicial Communication [Files 05CVS3411, 08CVS3715; and 09CVS6918 [Judge Stephens][filed 14 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Judgment Pursuant To Rule 59 And Rule 52(b) [filed 18 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . Motion For Access N.C.G.S. 1-72.1 [filed 21 SEPTMEBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . Motion To Show Cause [Extra-Judicial Communication][filed 8 OCTOBER 2009]. . . . . [Plaintiffs] Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Judgment Pursuant To Rule 59 And Rule 52(b)[filed 12 NOVEMBER 2009]. . . .
277
306 339 341 343 347
350 358 364 376 379 383
-vi-
Order [Extra-Judicial Communication, Motion For Access, Rule 59, Rule 60, Rule 63] [filed 9 NOVEMBER 2009][served 16 NOV 2009]. Notice of Appeal [with Certificate of Service] [filed 18 NOVEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . . Narration Option of the Issues . . . . . . . . Motion for Extension Of Time [For Service Of The Proposed Record On Appeal] [Judge Jolly][served 23 DECEMBER 2009]. . . . Order On Motion for Extension Of Time [For Service Of The Proposed Record On Appeal] [Judge Jolly][granted 7 JANUARY 2010]. . . . Order Granting Appellant Leave to File Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Judge Hobgood] [filed 26 January 2010]. . . . . . . . . . . Stipulation Settling Record On Appeal . . . . . Proposed Issues On Appeal . . . . . . . . . . Identification of Counsel For The Appeal. . . . Certificate of Service For Proposed Record . .
397 401 404 405 407 409 412 414 415 416
-1-
STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION OF THE TRIAL COURT From the July 14, 2008 Civil Session of Superior Court of Wake County, the Honorable James C. Spencer, Judge presiding. From the July 29, 2008 and August 29, 2008 judgments dismissing plaintiffs claim in case 08 CVS 3715. From the August 31, 2009 Civil Session of Superior Court of Wake County, the Honorable Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge presiding. From the September 10, 2009 order of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order on Plaintiffs Rule 63, Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions of Judge Spencers July 25, 2008 and August 29, 2008 Orders in 08 CVS 3715. From the November 9, 2009 judgment denying plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the September 10, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order on Plaintiffs Rule 63, Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions of Judge Spencers July 25, 2008 and August 29, 2008 Orders in 08 CVS 3715. From the September 14, 2009 order of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order On Extra-Judicial Communication in cases 05 CVS 3411; 08 CVS 003715; and 09 CVS 6918. From the November 9, 2009 judgment denying plaintiffs motion to alter or amend the September 14, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order On Extra-Judicial Communication in case 05 CVS 3411. From the September 14, 2009 order of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order On Plaintiffs Motion to Show Cause in case 05 CVS 3411. From the November 9, 2009 judgment denying defendants motion to alter or amend the September 14, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled Order On Plaintiffs Motion to Show Cause in case 05 CVS 3411. From the November 9, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens denying movants motion entitled Motion for Access N.C.G.S. 1-72.1. The record on appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals on ______________, 2010 and was docketed on ___________, 2010.
-2-
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The 05 CVS 3411 case was commenced by the filing of a complaint and the issuance of summons on March 14, 2005 by Plaintiffs Oak Health Care Investors of North Carolina, INC., a North Carolina Corporation d/b/a The Laurels of Forest Glenn; and Laurel Health Care Company. The parties acknowledge that the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The 08 CVS 003715 case was commenced by the filing of a complaint and issuance of summons on March 6, 2008 by pro se Plaintiff Kenneth C. Johnson. Additional summons was issued on July 16, 2008. The parties dispute that the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the corporate defendants. The 09 CVS 6918 case was commenced by the filing of a complaint and issuance of summons on April 6, 2009 by Plaintiff Kenneth C. Johnson. The parties acknowledge that the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-
-16-
-17-
-18-
-19-
-20-
-21-
-22-
-23-
-24-
-25-
-26-
-27-
-28-
-29-
-30-
-31-
-32-
-33-
-34-
-35-
-36-
-37-
-38-
-39-
-40-
-41-
-42-
-43-
-44-
-45-
-46-
-47-
-48-
-49-
-50-
-51-
-52-
-53-
-54-
-55-
-56-
-57-
-58-
-59-
-60-
-61-
-62-
-63-
-64-
-65-
-66-
-67-
-68-
-69-
-70-
-71-
-72-
-73-
-74-
-75-
-76-
-77-
-78-
-79-
-80-
-81-
-82-
-83-
-84-
-85-
-86-
-87-
-88-
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
-99-
-100-
-101-
-102-
-103-
-104-
-105-
-106-
-107-
-108-
-109-
-110-
-111-
-112-
-113-
-114-
-115-
-116-
-117-
-118-
-119-
-120-
-121-
-122-
-123-
-124-
-125-
-126-
-127-
-128-
-129-
-130-
-131-
-132-
-133-
-134-
-135-
-136-
-137-
-138-
-139-
-140-
-141-
-142-
-143-
-144-
-145-
-146-
-147-
-148-
-149-
-150-
-151-
-152-
-153-
-154-
-155-
-156-
-157-
-158-
-159-
-160-
-161-
-162-
-163-
-164-
-165-
-166-
-167-
-168-
-169-
-170-
-171-
-172-
-173-
-174-
-175-
-176-
-177-
-178-
-179-
-180-
-181-
-182-
-183-
-184-
-185-
-186-
-187-
-188-
-189-
-190-
-191-
-192-
-193-
-194-
-195-
-196-
-197-
-198-
-199-
-200-
-201-
-202-
-203-
-204-
-205-
-206-
-207-
-208-
-209-
-210-
-211-
-212-
-213-
-214-
-215-
-216-
-217-
-218-
-219-
-220-
-221-
-222-
-223-
-224-
-225-
-226-
-227-
-228-
-229-
-230-
-231-
-232-
-233-
-234-
-235-
-236-
-237-
-238-
-239-
-240-
-241-
-242-
-243-
-244-
-245-
-246-
-247-
-248-
-249-
-250-
-251-
-252-
-253-
-254-
-255-
-256-
-257-
-258-
-259-
-260-
-261-
-262-
-263-
-264-
-265-
-266-
-267-
-268-
-269-
-270-
-271-
-272-
-273-
-274-
-275-
-276-
-277-
-278-
-279-
-280-
-281-
-282-
-283-
-284-
-285-
-286-
-287-
-288-
-289-
-290-
-291-
-292-
-293-
-294-
-295-
-296-
-297-
-298-
-299-
-300-
-301-
-302-
-303-
-304-
-305-
-306-
-307-
-308-
-309-
-310-
-311-
-312-
-313-
-314-
-315-
-316-
-317-
-318-
-319-
-320-
-321-
-322-
-323-
-324-
-325-
-326-
-327-
-328-
-329-
-330-
-331-
-332-
-333-
-334-
-335-
-336-
-337-
-338-
-339-
-340-
-341-
-342-
-343-
-344-
-345-
-346-
-347-
-348-
-349-
-350-
-351-
-352-
-353-
-354-
-355-
-356-
-357-
-358-
-359-
-360-
-361-
-362-
-363-
-364-
-365-
-366-
-367-
-368-
-369-
-370-
-371-
-372-
-373-
-374-
-375-
-376-
-377-
-378-
-379-
-380-
-381-
-382-
-383-
-384-
-385-
-386-
-387-
-388-
-389-
-390-
-391-
-392-
-393-
-394-
-395-
-396-
-397-
-398-
-399-
-400-
-401-
-402-
-403-
NARRATION OPTION OF THE ISSUES The transcript will not be forwarded with this appeal. The original denial of the appellants motion to appeal in forma pauperis made the inclusion of the transcript cost-prohibitive for the indigent appellant prior to the deadline for service of the proposed record on appeal. After the subsequent order granting the appellant in forma pauperis status, the transcript still remains non-essential for the understanding of this appeal and the voluminous pleadings and multiple hearings in this appeal would necessitate several transcripts and may confuse more than enlighten. Fortunately, notwithstanding the multiple issues raised in this appeal, the dispositive issues concern stare decisis rulings. The appellant filed a complaint to address issues concerning the public policy exception to the at will doctrine. The corporate defendants were not served by the letter of Rule 4, however the corporate defendants made multiple general appearances prior to pleading insufficiency of service, including a motion to strike elements of the complaint. The appellant objected within multiple pleadings to the dismissal, as he believes the parties were estopped from pleading the defense of insufficiency of service of process after making multiple general appearances. Also, the ruling on attorney fees is not supported by competent evidence and seeks to deny the appellant the right to cure defective service of process. The appellant requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and rulings on objections to these issues and did not receive the requested rulings. Additionally, after the trial court found the appellant in civil contempt for publishing information on the internet about the pending cases, the appellant moved for a hearing to bring forth evidence that the information is public record and therefore protected speech. The request for a hearing was denied. The requested finding of fact and conclusions of law to support the ordered gag order was also denied. These are the dispositive issues that necessitate this appeal.
-404-
-405-
-406-
-407-
-408-
-409-
-410-
-411-
STIPULATION SETTLING RECORD ON APPEAL The Appellant and counsel for the Appellee stipulate as follows: 1. The proposed record on appeal was timely served on 22 January 2010. The certificate showing service of the proposed record may be omitted from the settled record. 2. Appellees objections were served on ___________ Appellee objected to _____________ and ___________________. The parties came to an agreement as to which documents would be included in the printed record. Because no party moved for judicial settlement, the record on appeal was deemed settled on _______________. 3. All captions, signatures, headings of papers, certificates of service and documents filed with the trial court that are not necessary for an understanding of the appeal may be omitted from the record, except as required by Rule 9 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 4. The parties stipulate that the following documents appeared as attachments to multiple filings in the trial court, but will be included only once in the Record on Appeal to avoid unnecessary duplication. Where a duplicative copy would have appeared, a slip sheet referring to the pages where the first copy appears in the printed record is substituted instead. a. ____________________. Copy included in the record at ___________. b. ____________________. Copy included in the record at ___________. 5. The parties stipulate that the following documents constitute the agreed-upon record on appeal to be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals: a. This printed record on appeal, consisting of pages 1 to 422;
-412-
b. The Rule 11(c) Supplemental Record on Appeal identified in stipulation 2, consisting of pages_________ (three copies of which are filed along with this printed record on appeal). c. The Motion for Extension of Time For Service of the Proposed Record [R pp 405-406] was timely served upon the Court on 23 December 2009 and the Order on Motion For Extension of Time [R pp 407-408] was granted on 7 January 2010. This _______ day of _________, 2010. For the Appellant: ________________________________ Name of pro se Appellant For the Appellee: _______________________________ Name of Counsel
-413-
PROPOSED ISSUES ON APPEAL Pursuant to Rule 10, [and 7(a)(1)], Appellant intends to present the following proposed issues on appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in dismissing the corporate defendants for insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction without jurisdiction to grant the order? 2. Did the trial court err in dismissing the corporate defendants [R pp 190] for insufficiency of service of process after the defendants failed to plead such defenses in a timely responsive pleading? 3. Did the trial court err in striking the summons without sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law [R pp 190] to support the order? 4. Did the trial court err in awarding attorneys fees without sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the order? 5. Did the trial court err in awarding attorneys fees without competent evidence to support such fees? 6. Did the trial court err in considering ex parte prejudicial evidence outside the pleadings during deliberation of the judgment? 7. Did the trial court err in refusing to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law to support an order on extra-judicial communication?
-414-
IDENTIFICATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPEALFor the Appellant: For the Appellee: Kenneth C. Johnson Pro Se Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP. Christopher M. West NCBN 29504 (919) 719-6053 email: [email protected] Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP. Sean T. Partrick NCBN 25176 (919) 719-6051 email: [email protected] Young, Moore & Henderson, PA Walter E. Brock, Jr. NCBN ________ (919) 782-6753 email: [email protected]
-415-
