UDTPA violations require a plaintiff to show that (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) that was in or affecting commerce and (3) proximately caused injury. Stack v. Abbott Lab'ys, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 666–67 (M.D.N.C. 2013) (citing Dalton, 548 S.E.2d at 711 ). "An act or practice is unfair ‘if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,’ and is deceptive ‘if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.’ " Id. (quoting Ace Chem. Corp. v. DSI Transp., Inc., 115 N.C.App. 237, 446 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1994) ).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 664 (M.D.N.C. 2013). A court can reach the merits of a limitations issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage only "if all facts necessary to the [statute of limitations] defense 'clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.'" Stack, 979 F. Supp. 2d at 664 (quoting Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007)) (alteration in original).
In considering Abbott's motion to dismiss, The Honorable Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, District Court Judge, stated, "[t]he parties agree that the Agreement is governed by California law and therefore appear to agree that its four-year statute of limitations applies." Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 664 (M.D.N.C. 2013). At that stage of the proceeding, the parties did not dispute which governing law applied.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F.Supp.2d 658, 664 (M.D. N.C. 2013).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c) (1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F.Supp.2d 658, 664 (M.D. N.C. 2013).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F.Supp.2d 658, 664 (M.D. N.C. 2013). Therefore, this court can reach the merits of the issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage only “if all facts necessary to the [statute of limitations] defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.' ”
Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 88, 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (2013). "[S]ection 75-1.1 does not, for example, apply to an individual who merely breaches a contract," even intentionally. Id.; see also Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 668 (M.D.N.C. 2013). Aggravating circumstances, however, "such as deceptive conduct by the breaching party, can trigger the provisions of the Act."
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 664 (M.D.N.C. 2013). As a result, a court can reach the merits of a statute of limitations issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage only "if all facts necessary to the [statute of limitations] defense 'clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.'" Stack, 979 F. Supp. 2d at 664 (quoting Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007)) (alteration in original).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be proven by a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1) ; Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F.Supp.2d 658, 664 (M.D.N.C. 2013).
Defendants bear the burden of proof that the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense, bars the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F. Supp. 2d 658, 664 (M.D.N.C. 2013). A court can reach the merits of a limitations issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage only "if all facts necessary to the [statute of limitations] defense 'clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint.'"