⁴ January 2021, Defendant petitioned this Court to issue a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. II. Jurisdiction A. Interlocutory Nature of Defendant’s Appeal ¶ 10 Defendant argues the trial court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer Defendant’s motion to dismiss (“trial court’s order”) changed the venue of the case. Defendant contends since the right to venue established by statute is a substantial right, Defendant’s appeal of the trial court’s order is jurisdictionally proper before this Court. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s appeal is interlocutory and should be dismissed by this Court. ¶ 11 “An order is interlocutory ‘if it does not determine the issues but directs some further proceeding preliminary to final decree.’” Waters v. Qualified Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978) (quoting Greene v. Laboratories, Inc., 254 N.C. 680, 693, 120 S.E. 2d 82, 91 (1961)). “As a general proposition, only final judgments, as opposed to interlocutory orders, may be appealed to the appellate courts.” Hamilton v. Mortg. Info. Servs., Inc., 212 N.C. App. 73, 77, 711 S.E.2d 185, 188 (2011) (citations omitted). “Appeals from interlocutory orders are only available in exceptional circumstances.” Hamilton, 212 N.C. App. at 77, 711 S.E.2d at 188, (citation and internal quotations omitted). “The rule against interlocutory appeals CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court seeks to prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by allowing the trial court to bring a case to final judgment before its presentation to the appellate courts.” Turner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, 141, 526 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2000) (citing Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978)). ¶ 12 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(a) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(3)a create an exception to the rule against interlocutory appeals for appeals challenging an interlocutory order affecting a “substantial right.” A substantial right is one which will clearly be lost if the order is not reviewed before final judgment, such that the normal course of procedure is inadequate to protect the substantial right affected by the order sought to be appealed. Blackwelder v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780-81 (1983). The North Carolina Supreme Court defines a substantial right as follows: “A legal right affecting or involving a matter of substance as distinguished from matter of form: a right materially affecting those interests which a man is entitled to have preserved and protected by law: a material right.” Oestreicher v. Am. Nat’l Stores Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 130, 225 S.E.2d 797, 805 (1976) (adopting the definition found in Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (1971). ¶ 13 Defendant is correct in its contention that the right to venue established by statute is a substantial right. See Gardner v. Gardner, 300 N.C. 715, 719, 268 S.E.2d 468, 471 (1980) (“There can be no doubt that a right to venue established by statute is a substantial right . . . [and its] grant or denial is immediately appealable.”) CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court However, the order did not grant, deny, change, or otherwise affect venue, and therefore did not affect a substantial right. See La Falce v. Wolcott, 76 N.C. App. 565, 569, 334 S.E.2d 236, 239 (1985). The order entered addressed and sought to resolve an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, not an issue of venue. ¶ 14 Subject matter jurisdiction and venue are two distinct legal principles. Subject matter jurisdiction has been defined as “[a] court’s power to decide a case or issue a decree.” In re M.I.W., 365 N.C. 374, 377, 722 S.E.2d 469, 472 (2012) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 654, 927 (9th ed. 2009)). Venue, on the other hand, concerns “the proper or a possible place for a lawsuit to proceed, usually because the place has some connection either with the events that gave rise to the lawsuit or with the plaintiff or defendant.” Stokes v. Stokes, 371 N.C. 770, 772, 821 S.E.2d 161, 163 (2018) (cleaned up) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). ¶ 15 Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer Defendant’s motion to dismiss was based on Plaintiffs’ contention the three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court had the statutory right, pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(4), to decide the constitutional issue raised by Defendant, not on a contention Wake County was a preferable location in comparison to Forsyth County. See In re M.I.W., 365 N.C. at 377, 722 S.E.2d at 472; see also Stokes, 371 N.C. at 772, 821 S.E.2d at 163. The transcript reflects the word “venue” is used once by the trial court, specifically when acknowledging that only the constitutional issue would be transferred, and that venue for the action would remain CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court in Forsyth County. Though the trial court’s order stated the “action” was being transferred to the three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court, the order reflects the venue would remain in Forsyth County. See Holdstock v. Duke Univ. Health Sys., 270 N.C. App. 267, 279, 841 S.E.2d 307, 316 (2020) (citation omitted) (holding when a trial court transfers a facial challenge to a three-judge panel pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(4), it “maintain[s] jurisdiction over all matters other than the challenge to the act’s facial validity”). ¶ 16 Based on the language of the trial court as reflected in the transcript and on the face of its order, as well as the definitions of both “venue” and “subject matter jurisdiction,” we conclude that the trial court order transferring Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court was entered in compliance with the subject matter jurisdiction conveyed upon the three-judge panel by the General Assembly. It does not give rise to establishing or depriving Defendant of a substantial right. The trial court retained venue of the case in Forsyth County. Therefore, the trial court’s order is not immediately reviewable, and Defendant’s appeal is interlocutory. B. Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari ¶ 17 Under N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1), “a writ of certiorari will only be issued upon a showing of appropriate circumstances in a civil case where [inter alia] no right to appeal from an interlocutory order exists.” Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., 165 CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court N.C. App. 1, 12, 598 S.E.2d 570, 578-79 (2004). Consequently, “[i]t is an appropriate exercise of this Court’s discretion to issue a writ of certiorari in an interlocutory appeal where . . . there is merit to an appellant’s substantive arguments and it is in the interests of justice to treat an appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.” Zaliagiris v. Zaliagiris, 164 N.C. App. 602, 606, 596 S.E.2d 285, 289 (2004). This Court has determined that such interests exist when the impact of the lawsuit is “significant,” the issues involved are “important,” and the case presents a need for the writ in the interest of the “efficient administration of justice,” or the granting of the writ would “promote judicial economy.” See Stetser 165 N.C. App. at 12, 598 S.E.2d at 578-79 (granting review of a class action certification based on the “need for efficient administration of justice,” the “significance of the issues in dispute,” the “significant impact” of the lawsuit, the effect of the order on “numerous individuals and corporations” and the “substantial amount of potential liability” involved); see also Hill v. Stubhub, Inc., 219 N.C. App. 227, 232, 727 S.E.2d 550, 554 (2012) (granting review in order to “further the interests of justice”). ¶ 18 The issue Defendant raises on appeal presents the central question of what the appropriate requirements for a trial court are to transfer a case to be heard by a three- judge panel. Granting Defendant’s petition would afford this Court the opportunity to consider a relatively new statutory scheme which has limited jurisprudence surrounding it. In considering the issues raised by Defendant this Court will have CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court the opportunity to provide guidance and clarity to trial courts across North Carolina when evaluating the merits of a potential transfer of a case to a three-judge panel. For these reasons, we conclude that Defendant’s raised issue is “significant” and “important” and that granting the petition for writ of certiorari will “promote judicial economy” by providing trial courts with guidance on a novel and complex statutory scheme. See Stetser, 165 N.C. App. at 12, 598 S.E.2d at 578-79; see also Stubhub, 219 N.C. App. at 232, 727 S.E.2d at 554. C. Trial Court’s Finding Plaintiff Raised a Facial Challenge ¶ 19 In 2014 the North Carolina General Assembly implemented a statutory scheme which requires certain challenges to its acts be decided by a three-judge panel in the Superior Court of Wake County. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-81.1 and 1-267.1. These statutes only apply to “facial challenges to the validity of an act of the General Assembly, not as applied challenges.” Holdstock v. Duke Univ. Health Sys., 270 N.C. App. at 271, 841 S.E.2d at 311 (2020) (cleaned up); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1(a1). Under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, for a facial challenge to the validity of an act of the General Assembly to be transferred to a three-judge panel the facial challenge must be raised by a claimant in the claimant’s complaint or amended complaint or by the defendant in the defendant’s answer, responsive pleading, or within 30 days of filing the defendant’s answer or responsive pleading. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 42(b)(4). If the facial challenge is properly raised, “the court shall, CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court on its own motion, transfer that portion of the action challenging the validity of the act of the General Assembly to the Superior Court of Wake County for resolution by a three-judge panel . . . .” Id. ¶ 20 In the case sub judice, the initial constitutional challenge was raised in Defendant’s 1 June 2020 motion to dismiss. However, Defendant specifically stated that they were arguing the General Assembly’s 2019 amendments “are unconstitutional only as applied to the Kernersville YMCA on the particular facts of this case . . . .” No mention of a facial challenge was made until Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a three-judge panel. In their motion to transfer, the Plaintiffs’ asserted that Defendant was in fact making a facial challenge to the 2019 amendments. Following Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer, Defendant reaffirmed they were making an as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the 2019 amendments by filing an amended motion to dismiss (which maintained the as applied language) and arguing before the trial court at the hearing on the motion to transfer that their challenge was an as applied challenge. ¶ 21 In its order transferring Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a three-judge panel, the trial court stated, “[u]nder the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-1A, Rule 42(b)(4), because Plaintiff has asserted facial challenges to the constitutionality of acts of the North Carolina General Assembly, the challenges must be heard and determined by a three-judge panel of the Wake County Superior CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court Court.” However, we conclude that Plaintiffs did not make a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the 2019 amendments. In fact, Plaintiffs specifically stated they were not arguing the 2019 amendments were unconstitutional, only that Defendant’s challenge was in fact a facial challenge. Further, even if Plaintiffs had made a facial challenge, they did so in a motion to transfer, not in their complaint as required by Rule 42(b)(4). In fact, making any argument the 2019 amendments were unconstitutional would be in direct opposition to Plaintiffs’ claims before the trial court. As Defendant made clear they were only making an as applied challenge to the 2019 amendments, and the trial court did not make a determination itself that Defendant’s constitutional challenges were in fact a facial challenge, no facial challenge was made in the time prescribed by Rule 42(b)(4) for a court to be able to transfer a facial challenge to a three-judge panel. ¶ 22 Defendant YMCA moved to dismiss all claims, clearly making an “as applied” challenge to Section 1-17(e).1 Defendant does not challenge the authority of the General Assembly to create disabilities as a means of extending the time during which a sufferer of sexual abuse may sue. Rather, Defendant only challenges subsection (e)’s application to claims that had already become time-barred prior to its 1 I note that Section 1-17(d) provides that a minor who suffers sexual abuse may sue a defendant for claims related to the sexual abuse has until (s)he turns 28 years of age to bring such action. Subsection (d) does not come into play in this present case as all Plaintiffs were over 28 years of age when the present action was commenced. CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court enactment in 2019. Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that “[a] right or remedy, once barred by a statute of limitations, may not be revived by an Act of the General Assembly. . . . But the Legislature may [only] extend at will the time within which a right may be asserted or a remedy invoked so long as it is not already barred by an existing statute.” Waldrop v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 370, 373, 53 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1949). See also Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459, 461, 142 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1965). ¶ 23 While the trial court is free to transfer an action to a three-judge panel on its own motion based on a facial challenge to an act of the General Assembly, a trial court is not free to impute a facial challenge argument on a party. Nor is a trial court free to transfer a matter to a three-judge panel so that the three-judge panel may decide whether a facial challenge was raised. The plain language of the statutory scheme clearly provides that a party must affirmatively raise a facial challenge, and that facial challenge must be raised in either the claimant’s complaint/amended complaint or the defendant’s answer, responsive pleading, or within 30 days of the defendant’s answer or responsive pleading. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-81.1, 1-267.1, and 1- 1A, Rule 42(b)(4). No such facial challenge was raised here. As a result, we conclude the trial court erred by transferring Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a three-judge panel. VI. Conclusion ¶ 24 We hold the trial court’s order transferring Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a CRYAN V. NAT’L COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF THE U.S. 2021-NCCOA-612 Opinion of the Court three-judge panel in Wake County Superior Court was an interlocutory order not affecting a substantial right. We also conclude that this case presents significant and important issues and grant Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari in the interest of judicial economy. As a result, we necessarily deny Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendant’s appeal. ¶ 25 We hold neither party raised a facial challenge to the 2019 amendments and that the trial court erred by transferring Defendant’s motion to dismiss to a three- judge panel. Thus, we vacate and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. VACATE AND REMAND. Judge DILLON concurs. Judge CARPENTER dissents. No. COA20-696 – Cryan v. Nat’l Council of Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of the U.S. CARPENTER, Judge, dissenting. ¶ 26 Under N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1), “a writ of certiorari will only be issued upon a showing of appropriate circumstances in a civil case where [inter alia] no right to appeal from an interlocutory order exists.” Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., 165 N.C. App. 1, 12, 598 S.E.2d 570, 578-79 (2004). Consequently, “[i]t is an appropriate exercise of this Court’s discretion to issue a writ of certiorari in an interlocutory appeal where . . . there is merit to an appellant’s substantive arguments and it is in the interests of justice to treat an appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.” Zaliagiris v. Zaliagiris, 164 N.C. App. 602, 606, 596 S.E.2d 285, 289 (2004). This Court has determined that such interests exist when the impact of the lawsuit is “significant,” the issues involved are “important,” and the case presents a need for the writ in the interests of the “efficient administration of justice,” or the granting of the writ would “promote judicial economy.” See Stetser 165 N.C. App. at 12, 598 S.E.2d at 578-79 (granting review of a class action certification based on the “need for efficient administration of justice,” the “significance of the issues in dispute,” the “significant impact” of the lawsuit, the effect of the order on “numerous individuals and corporations” and the “substantial amount of potential liability” involved); see also Hill v. Stubhub, Inc., 219 N.C. App. 227, 232, 727 S.E.2d 550, 554 (2012) (granting review in order to “further the interests of justice”).