Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc.

38 Citing cases

  1. Intercollegiate Women's Lacrosse Coaches Ass'n v. Corrigan Sports Enters., Inc.

    546 F. Supp. 3d 440 (M.D.N.C. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    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) ).

  2. Mobley v. Greensboro City Police Dep't

    1:17CV114 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    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).

  3. Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc.

    1:12CV148 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the general rule set forth in Everett applies to contracts under which payments are made in installments

    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.

  4. Alford v. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan

    CIVIL 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2024)

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1); Stack v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 979 F.Supp.2d 658, 664 (M.D. N.C. 2013).

  5. Oldham v. Univ. of N.C.

    1:22cv513 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 13, 2023)

    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).

  6. Nordman v. Tadjer-Cohen-Edelson Assocs.

    Civil Action DKC 21-1818 (D. Md. Sep. 21, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    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.' ”

  7. Richards v. PHH Mortg. Corp.

    1:19CV759 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In Richards, the plaintiff made two of the three required TPP payments and upon submitting her third payment, she was informed that her loan modification was declined.

    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."

  8. Emiabata v. BB&T (Branch Banking & Tr. Co.)

    1:17-CV-529 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2018)

    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).

  9. Humana, Inc. v. Ameritox, LLC

    267 F. Supp. 3d 669 (M.D.N.C. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Finding the complaint sufficiently particular where the insurance company gave a drug testing provider alleged to have fraudulently submitted claims for reimbursement "sufficient notice that it challenges only those Ameritox submissions that were duplicative, lacked a medical provider's direction, were medically unnecessary, and/or lacked proper documentation"

    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).

  10. Cody Creek Park, Inc. v. Capital One Servs., LLC

    1:16CV1136 (M.D.N.C. Jul. 25, 2017)

    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.'"