lex loci test in North Carolina

2020App. at 697 , 698 S.E.2d at 725–26 (declining to create a bright line rule for purposes of the lex loci test that a plaintiff’s injury is suffered at its principal place of business); and United Dominion Indus., 762 F. Supp. at 129–31 (rejecting an argument advanced in the context of an unfair and deceptive practices case that, for purposes of the lex loci test, the location of the corporation’s “pocketbook” should determine the location at which the offending conduct occurred), and with any unlawful use or disclosure of SciGrip’s information having occurred in the United Kingdom, Ohio, or Flo

2020App. at 697 , 698 S.E.2d at 725–26 (declining to create a bright line rule for purposes of the lex loci test that a plaintiff’s injury is suffered at its principal place of business); and United Dominion Indus., 762 F. Supp. at 129–31 (rejecting an argument advanced in the context of an unfair and deceptive practices case that, for purposes of the lex loci test, the location of the corporation’s “pocketbook” should determine the location at which the offending conduct occurred), and with any unlawful use or disclosure of SciGrip’s information having occurred in the United Kingdom, Ohio, or Flo

2022Our courts have “consistently adhered to the lex loci rule in tort actions.” Id. (italics added). 22.

2021GARRELTS 2021-NCCOA-275 Opinion of the Court ¶ 14 The lex loci test states that the rights of the parties are governed by “the law of the situs of the claim.” Boudreau, 322 N.C. at 335 , 368 S.E.2d at 854 .

2020App. at 697 , 698 S.E.2d at 725–26 (declining to create a bright line rule for purposes of the lex loci test that a plaintiff’s injury is suffered at its principal place of business); and United Dominion Indus., 762 F. Supp. at 129–31 (rejecting an argument advanced in the context of an unfair and deceptive practices case that, for purposes of the lex loci test, the location of the corporation’s “pocketbook” should determine the location at which the offending conduct occurred), and with any unlawful use or disclosure of SciGrip’s information having occurred in the United Kingdom, Ohio, or Flo

2020WL 5437119 at *1, a federal district court concluded that a North Carolina court “would have applied the lex loci delicti rule to determine which state’s laws govern all of [the North Carolina employer’s] claims other than breach of contract,” including the plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim, id. at *3–4 (citing United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp., 762 F. Supp. 126, 129 (W.D.N.C. 1991) (predicting that this Court “would apply the traditional lex loci rule rather than the most significant relationship test” in a deceptive trade practices case); Martinez v. Nat’l

2020According to SciGrip, these decisions tend to prefer the use of the most significant relationship test on the grounds that it avoids rigidity and makes it possible to use “a more flexible approach which would allow the court in each case to inquire which state has the most significant relationship with the events constituting the alleged tort and with the parties.” Santana, Inc. v. Levi Strauss and Co., 674 F.2d 269, 272 (4th Cir. 1982).

2010In Santana, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., the Court held that California law would apply under the lex loci test where the injury alleged by the plaintiff, a Missouri corporation with an office in North Carolina, was invoice deductions made by the defendant in California as a result of a dispute over the quality of fabric supplied by the defendant. 674 F.2d 269 , 273 (4th Cir. 1982).

2021App. 500, 505 , 673 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2009) (alienation of affection); Tennessee Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 283 N.C. 423, 440 , 196 S.E.2d 711, 722 (1973) (breach of contract). ¶ 13 Here, the question becomes whether the present action is governed by the lex loci test or the lex fori test—in other words, does a paternity statute qualify as a procedural or substantive law?

2021App. 500, 505 , 673 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2009) (alienation of affection); Tennessee Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 283 N.C. 423, 440 , 196 S.E.2d 711, 722 (1973) (breach of contract). ¶ 13 Here, the question becomes whether the present action is governed by the lex loci test or the lex fori test—in other words, does a paternity statute qualify as a procedural or substantive law?

2021App. 500, 505 , 673 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2009) (alienation of affection); Tennessee Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 283 N.C. 423, 440 , 196 S.E.2d 711, 722 (1973) (breach of contract). ¶ 13 Here, the question becomes whether the present action is governed by the lex loci test or the lex fori test—in other words, does a paternity statute qualify as a procedural or substantive law?

2021App. 500, 505 , 673 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2009) (alienation of affection); Tennessee Carolina Transp., Inc. v. Strick Corp., 283 N.C. 423, 440 , 196 S.E.2d 711, 722 (1973) (breach of contract). ¶ 13 Here, the question becomes whether the present action is governed by the lex loci test or the lex fori test—in other words, does a paternity statute qualify as a procedural or substantive law?

2020In addition, Mr. Osae asserts that the federal courts sitting in this and other states have tended to apply the lex loci test in determining whether particular misappropriation of trade secrets claims are encompassed within the ambit of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, citing Domtar Al Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d at 641 , Chattery Int’l Inc. v. JoLida, Inc., No. WDQ-10-2236, 2012 U.S. Dist.

2020In addition, Mr. Osae asserts that the federal courts sitting in this and other states have tended to apply the lex loci test in determining whether particular misappropriation of trade secrets claims are encompassed within the ambit of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, citing Domtar Al Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d at 641 , Chattery Int’l Inc. v. JoLida, Inc., No. WDQ-10-2236, 2012 U.S. Dist.

2020See, e.g., Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331 , 335–36, 368 S.E.2d 849 , 853–54 (1988) (noting that “[o]ur traditional conflict of laws rule is that matters affecting the substantial rights of the parties are determined by lex loci,” with this Court having “consistent[ly] adhere[d]” to the lex loci test in tort actions” and with there being “no reason to abandon this well-settled rule at this time”); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124 , 126–27, 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (stating that “[w]e do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in

2020See, e.g., Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331 , 335–36, 368 S.E.2d 849 , 853–54 (1988) (noting that “[o]ur traditional conflict of laws rule is that matters affecting the substantial rights of the parties are determined by lex loci,” with this Court having “consistent[ly] adhere[d]” to the lex loci test in tort actions” and with there being “no reason to abandon this well-settled rule at this time”); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124 , 126–27, 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (stating that “[w]e do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in

2020See, e.g., Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331 , 335–36, 368 S.E.2d 849 , 853–54 (1988) (noting that “[o]ur traditional conflict of laws rule is that matters affecting the substantial rights of the parties are determined by lex loci,” with this Court having “consistent[ly] adhere[d]” to the lex loci test in tort actions” and with there being “no reason to abandon this well-settled rule at this time”); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124 , 126–27, 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (stating that “[w]e do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in

2020See, e.g., Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331 , 335–36, 368 S.E.2d 849 , 853–54 (1988) (noting that “[o]ur traditional conflict of laws rule is that matters affecting the substantial rights of the parties are determined by lex loci,” with this Court having “consistent[ly] adhere[d]” to the lex loci test in tort actions” and with there being “no reason to abandon this well-settled rule at this time”); Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc., 330 N.C. 124 , 126–27, 409 S.E.2d 914, 915 (1991) (stating that “[w]e do not hesitate in holding that as to the tort law controlling the rights of the litigants in

2020Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 331, 338 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (noting that this Court “has affirmed the continuing validity” of the lex loci test in deceptive trade practices cases); and Domtar AI Inc., 43 -18- SCIGRIP, INC.

2020Co., 911 F. Supp. 2d 331, 338 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (noting that this Court “has affirmed the continuing validity” of the lex loci test in deceptive trade practices cases); and Domtar AI Inc., 43 -18- SCIGRIP, INC.

2017App. 315, 321 , 339 S.E.2d 90, 94 (1986)) (holding that the trial court “incorrectly applied the lex loci test when it focused its injury analysis on where the alleged negligent misrepresentations took place” when “plaintiff had not yet sustained any injury”). 5 The parties agree that the lex loci test rather than the “most significant relationship” test should determine the applicable law for each claim, including Soma’s claim under N.C.

2013United Va. Bank v. Air-Lift Assocs., 79 N.C.

2016Andrew Jackson Sales v. Bi-Lo Stores, Inc., 68 N.C.

2013App. 222, 225 , 314 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1984), while a subsequent panel applied the lex loci test.

2012See Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, 751 F. Supp. 2d 606, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, (discussing the rationale behind the "internal affairs doctrine" and recognizing that "[t]he state of incorporation maintains the greatest interest in regulating the conduct of corporations."); McDermott, 531 A.2d at 216 ("The policy underlying the internal affairs doctrine is an important one, and we decline to erode the principle . . . ."); Classic Coffee, 2006 NCBC 21, ¶ 89 (recognizing the "importance of the 'internal affairs doctrine' to the consistent application of the corporate law of [North

2012Davis v. Davis, 269 N.C. 120, 124 (1967); Morton v. Morton, 76 N.C.

2012See Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, 751 F. Supp. 2d 606, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, (discussing the rationale behind the "internal affairs doctrine" and recognizing that "[t]he state of incorporation maintains the greatest interest in regulating the conduct of corporations."); McDermott, 531 A.2d at 216 ("The policy underlying the internal affairs doctrine is an important one, and we decline to erode the principle . . . ."); Classic Coffee, 2006 NCBC 21, ¶ 89 (recognizing the "importance of the 'internal affairs doctrine' to the consistent application of the corporate law of [North

2012See Tyco Int'l Ltd. v. Walsh, 751 F. Supp. 2d 606, 619 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, (discussing the rationale behind the "internal affairs doctrine" and recognizing that "[t]he state of incorporation maintains the greatest interest in regulating the conduct of corporations."); McDermott, 531 A.2d at 216 ("The policy underlying the internal affairs doctrine is an important one, and we decline to erode the principle . . . ."); Classic Coffee, 2006 NCBC 21, ¶ 89 (recognizing the "importance of the 'internal affairs doctrine' to the consistent application of the corporate law of [North

2012Davis v. Davis, 269 N.C. 120, 124 (1967); Morton v. Morton, 76 N.C.

2002See id.