{ "id": 11866240, "name": "KURT HART SAXON, Plaintiff v. COURTNEY SMITH AND COURTNEY SMITH, LTD., Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Saxon v. Smith", "decision_date": "1997-01-21", "docket_number": "No. COA95-1312", "first_page": "163", "last_page": "174", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "125 N.C. App. 163" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 ALR2d 301", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "79 L. Ed. 2d 992", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 ALR4th 1006", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "78 ALR2d 1204", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562240, 8562274, 8562321, 8562358, 8562295 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0093-01", "/nc/301/0093-02", "/nc/301/0093-04", "/nc/301/0093-05", "/nc/301/0093-03" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553181 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 91", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93", "parenthetical": "state has strong interest in protecting persons doing business in North Carolina against employee fraud notwithstanding that contact limited to mailing fraudulent claims into this state" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 N.C. App. 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527715 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609", "parenthetical": "state has strong interest in protecting persons doing business in North Carolina against employee fraud notwithstanding that contact limited to mailing fraudulent claims into this state" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/76/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551786 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 U.S. 310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157001 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "102", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "316" }, { "page": "102" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/326/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E.2d 610", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "615-16" }, { "page": "615-16" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567856 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517-18" }, { "page": "517-18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E.2d 556", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553175 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "471 U.S. 462", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6205101 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" }, { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "defendant given fair warning his conduct may subject him to jurisdiction of foreign state when \"defendant has 'purposefully directed' his activities at residents of the forum . . ., and the litigation results from alleged injuries that 'arise out of or relate to' those activities\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/471/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "465 U.S. 783", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11337451 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "788-89" }, { "page": "811-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/465/0783-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795941, 796049, 795965, 796156, 796157 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0658-04", "/nc/342/0658-05", "/nc/342/0658-03", "/nc/342/0658-01", "/nc/342/0658-02" ] }, { "cite": "460 S.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "906" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11914042 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "465 U.S. 770", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11337359 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777", "parenthetical": "citing Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 577A, Comment a (1977)" }, { "page": "799", "parenthetical": "citing Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 577A, Comment a (1977)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/465/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S.E.2d 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation which involve wrongs willfully inflicted and the deprivation of marital companionship and cohabitation fall within statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560098, 8560130, 8560142, 8560113, 8560159 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation which involve wrongs willfully inflicted and the deprivation of marital companionship and cohabitation fall within statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0121-01", "/nc/284/0121-03", "/nc/284/0121-04", "/nc/284/0121-02", "/nc/284/0121-05" ] }, { "cite": "198 S.E.2d 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479", "parenthetical": "actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation which involve wrongs willfully inflicted and the deprivation of marital companionship and cohabitation fall within statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552230 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247", "parenthetical": "actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation which involve wrongs willfully inflicted and the deprivation of marital companionship and cohabitation fall within statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 S.E.2d 509", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" }, { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "\"injury to person or property\" includes claim based upon marital abandonment" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554351 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "696 F.2d 1062", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1498637 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1065" }, { "page": "1067-68" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/696/1062-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E.2d 640", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "643" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.C. App. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553864 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/39/0617-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12168694 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "458 S.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "716" }, { "page": "18" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915879 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" }, { "page": "213-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "failure of appellant \"to except and assign error separately to each finding or conclusion that he or she contends is not supported by the evidence . . . will result in a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support particular findings of fact\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4775585, 4775853, 4771860, 4771992, 4775065 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "failure of appellant \"to except and assign error separately to each finding or conclusion that he or she contends is not supported by the evidence . . . will result in a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support particular findings of fact\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0333-01", "/nc/317/0333-05", "/nc/317/0333-03", "/nc/317/0333-02", "/nc/317/0333-04" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "759-60" }, { "page": "759-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523105 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" }, { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793216, 793197, 793171, 793173, 793241 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0419-02", "/nc/341/0419-01", "/nc/341/0419-05", "/nc/341/0419-04", "/nc/341/0419-03" ] }, { "cite": "455 S.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "480", "parenthetical": "claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium properly classified as \"injuries] to person or property\" under statute" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11918298 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "347", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558922 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0674-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 358", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760644, 4766091, 4763893, 4763133, 4760062 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0825-04", "/nc/309/0825-01", "/nc/309/0825-05", "/nc/309/0825-03", "/nc/309/0825-02" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "889" }, { "page": "889" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 N.C. App. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523586 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" }, { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/62/0525-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1112, "char_count": 25623, "ocr_confidence": 0.745, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.546458839725785e-07, "percentile": 0.813927761811596 }, "sha256": "49aafb58803d882fc1389a266976aa5434d34e81b3d4461b9fd5992916dbe636", "simhash": "1:9e3bd7bf55ee1d5a", "word_count": 4013 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GREENE and MARTIN, Mark D., concur." ], "parties": [ "KURT HART SAXON, Plaintiff v. COURTNEY SMITH AND COURTNEY SMITH, LTD., Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nDefendants appeal the trial court\u2019s denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to stay prosecution pending conclusion of related litigation in Virginia. We affirm.\nThe allegations of plaintiffs complaint, defendants\u2019 answer, and discovery conducted by the parties reflect the following pertinent information: Plaintiff, a resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is an antique firearms dealer, while defendant Courtney Smith (Smith) is a gun dealer who operates defendant Courtney Smith, Ltd., in Henrico County, Virginia. Plaintiff made purchases from defendants who were vendors at gun shows in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina in August 1993 and February 1994. At a February 1993 gun show in Richmond, Virginia, plaintiff first mentioned to Smith that he owned a rifle which an expert had identified to plaintiff as an Iron Frame Henry Rifle (the rifle). Smith subsequently contacted plaintiff, both by telephone and letter from Virginia and, following negotiations, purchased the rifle for $40,000. The gun was delivered by plaintiff to Smith at a gun show in Richmond. Thereafter, Smith solicited the opinion of firearms examiner Eric Vaule and was informed the rifle was not an original Iron Frame Henry. According to plaintiff, a second appraiser, Norm Vegley, declared the gun to be an authentic Iron Frame Henry rifle that had been \u201crestored.\u201d Smith demanded that the purchase price be refunded, but plaintiff refused.\nIn May 1994, Smith initiated a civil action against plaintiff in Henrico County, Virginia, asserting fraud, breach of warranty, and breach of duty to deal in good faith and fair dealing. At filing of the parties\u2019 appellate briefs, this matter remained pending in the Virginia trial court.\nIn addition, as the result of Smith\u2019s complaint to the Henrico County, Virginia police department, a warrant was issued for plaintiffs arrest. Plaintiff alleged law enforcement officials were not informed two experts had declared the rifle to be authentic, but that Smith had represented plaintiff to be armed and dangerous. Plaintiff also asserted Smith encouraged Virginia law enforcement officers to \u201carrange for a bond appropriately [sic.] to the amount indicated by the fraud,\u201d i.e., that Smith had attempted to use the criminal process to secure payment of his alleged claim. A fugitive arrest warrant was eventually obtained against plaintiff which was served by the Matthews, North Carolina Police Department. All charges against plaintiff were ultimately dropped or dismissed by Henrico County.\nPlaintiff further alleged defendants published the following report in the September or November 1994 issue of their quarterly newsletter, entitled \u201cNews, Views and Just Things\u201d:\nTHE GREAT 40 thou FRAUD . . . most of you now know or have heard of the big rip off involving me with the purchase of a fake gun from one our southern brothers. Well, now, seems like this gent won\u2019t make the deal \u201cright\u201d. The system does work a little slow in resolving matters like this but the process is in progress . . .CRIMINAL FRAUD will be answered to the POLICE . . . (warrant for his arrest is outstanding) CIVIL FRAUD will be answered in COURT and as my lawyer lets me, I\u2019ll be giving you up to date reports, naming dates, time and above all \u201cthe NAME\u201d of this gentleman ... A real jewel.\nSmith acknowledged preparing and sending the newsletter to \u201cfriends, customers, dealers and those who have attended or who express an interest\u201d in gun shows, and stated the mailing list for the publication contained approximately 1,500 persons, \u201cless than 7% [of whom] reside in North Carolina.\u201d\nPlaintiff filed the instant action 7 March 1996, alleging claims of libel and slander, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants\u2019 28 April 1995 answer included a motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1 Rule 12(b)(2) (1990) for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-75.12(a) (1996) pending outcome of the Virginia litigation.\nThe trial court denied both motions in a 17 August 1995 order, which recited, inter alia, the following:\n1. ... In the case of the claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Court finds that these are actions claiming injury to person within this state arising out of acts or omissions alleged to have occurred outside the state by the Defendants.\n2. In the claim of slander and libel, the Court finds that such claim is for an action within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by Defendants and might also be construed to be an act or omission committed by Defendants within this state. (Plaintiff bases his claim for slander and libel in part upon a written communication alleged to have been authored by Defendants and sent to newsletter subscribers within the State of North Carolina communicating allegedly libelous material concerning Plaintiff. Plaintiff\u2019s claim for slander and libel also includes allegations of communications made in Virginia which lead to harm in North Carolina).\n3. Defendants solicited or carried out service activities within North Carolina at or about the time of the injury claimed as follows:\n(a) Defendants solicited Plaintiff by telephone to request that he sell them the rifle at issue in this case; and\n(b) Defendants participated in a gun show in North Carolina, offering for sale firearms within this state.\n4. Defendants communicated complaints and information regarding Plaintiff to law enforcement officials in Virginia which allegedly were intended to and did cause North Carolina criminal process to be issued against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to be arrested in North Carolina.\nBASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court concludes as a matter of law that jurisdiction over Defendants and the claims alleged is conferred by North Carolina\u2019s Long Arm Statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-76.4, and the exercise of that statutorily conferred power will not violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution because Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with North Carolina so that the maintenance of this suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\nDefendants filed timely notice of appeal.\nDefendants raise two arguments on appeal. They first contend the trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss \u201cwhere defendants lackfed] sufficient minimum contact\u201d with North Carolina \u201cto justify the State exercising personal jurisdiction over them.\u201d Second, defendants challenge the court\u2019s denial of their motion to stay. We discuss each question separately.\nInitially, we observe that\n[a]ny interested party shall have the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant. . . .\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-277(b) (1996). Such appeal is limited to a determination of whether North Carolina statutes permit our courts \u201cto entertain this action against defendants], and, if so, whether this exercise of jurisdiction violates due process.\u201d Styleco, Inc. v. Stoutco, Inc., 62 N.C. App. 525, 526, 302 S.E.2d 888, 889, disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 825, 310 S.E.2d 358 (1983). Accordingly, we first examine the applicable statutory provisions.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4 (1996), commonly referred to as the \u201clong arm\u201d statute, Dillon v. Funding Corp. 291 N.C. 674, 676, 231 S.E.2d 629, 630 (1977), provides in relevant part that:\nA court of this State having jurisdiction over the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served in an action pursuant to Rule 4(j) or Rule 4(j3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure under any of the following circumstances:\n(3)Local Act or Omission. \u2014 In any action claiming injury to person or property or for wrongful death within or without this State arising out of an act or omission within this State by the defendant.\n(4) Local Injury; Foreign Act. \u2014 In any action for wrongful death occurring within this state or in any action claiming injury to person or property within this State arising out of an act or omission outside this State by the defendant, provided in addition that at or about the time of the injury either:\na. Solicitation or services activities were carried on within this State by or on behalf of the defendant; or\nb. Products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed, within this State in the ordinary course of trade.\nUpon challenge to personal jurisdiction by a defendant, the plaintiff assumes \u201cthe burden of proving prima facie that a statutory basis for jurisdiction exists.\u201d Godwin v. Walls, 118 N.C. App. 341, 347, 455 S.E.2d 473, 481, disc. review allowed, 341 N.C. 419, 461 S.E.2d 757 (1995) (citation omitted). Defendants herein have set forth no assignments of error attacking the trial court\u2019s findings of fact supporting its determination of jurisdiction over each cause of action advanced by plaintiff. The court\u2019s findings are thus presumed to be correct. See Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc., 79 N.C. App. 678, 684, 340 S.E.2d 755, 759-60, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 333, 346 S.E.2d 137 (1986) (failure of appellant \u201cto except and assign error separately to each finding or conclusion that he or she contends is not supported by the evidence . . . will result in a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support particular findings of fact\u201d).\nNotwithstanding their failure to challenge the court\u2019s findings, defendants argue generally that \u201cthere simply is no evidence that the Defendants committed one or more acts within North Carolina\u201d so as to confer personal jurisdiction under G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4. In support of this assertion, defendants discuss at length cases holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred by signing a contract with a North Carolina resident, Robinson v. Hinkley, 119 N.C. App. 434, 436, 458 S.E.2d 715, 716 (1995), nor by mere telephone contact with an individual located in North Carolina, Curvcraft, Inc. v. J.C.F. and Assoc., Inc., 84 N.C. App. 450, 452, 352 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1987), nor by placing advertisements in a periodical. Hankins v. Somers, 39 N.C. App. 617, 620-21, 251 S.E.2d 640, 643 (1979). However, these cases speak to personal jurisdiction in the context of a contractual relationship and are inapposite.\nAs noted above, plaintiff has asserted claims of libel and slander, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4 is to be accorded a liberal construction, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. v. Delta Intern. Corp., 696 F.2d 1062, 1065 (4th Cir. 1982), and the term \u201cinjury to person or property\u201d as used in the statute\nshould be given a broad meaning consistent with the legislative intent to enlarge the concept of personal jurisdiction to the limits of fairness and due process, which negates the intent to limit the actions thereunder to traditional claims for bodily injury and property damages.\nSherwood v. Sherwood, 29 N.C. App. 112, 115, 223 S.E.2d 509, 512 (1976). While defendants do not raise the issue, we believe plaintiff\u2019s claims may properly be characterized as alleging \u201cinjuries] to person or property\u201d within the purview of the statute. See id. at 116, 223 S.E.2d at 512 (\u201cinjury to person or property\u201d includes claim based upon marital abandonment); Golding v. Taylor, 19 N.C. App. 245, 247, 198 S.E.2d 478, 479, cert. denied, 284 N.C. 121, 199 S.E.2d 659 (1973) (actions for alienation of affection and criminal conversation which involve wrongs willfully inflicted and the deprivation of marital companionship and cohabitation fall within statute); and Godwin, 118 N.C. App. at 350, 455 S.E.2d at 480 (claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium properly classified as \u201cinjuries] to person or property\u201d under statute).\nTurning to plaintiffs libel and slander cause of action, the tort \u201cis generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated.\u201d Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790, 799 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 577A, Comment a (1977)). We note Smith admitted in his affidavit that defendants\u2019 newsletter, containing the allegedly defamatory material, was distributed to approximately 100 residents of North Carolina. Accordingly, defendants\u2019 alleged publication of defamatory material in North Carolina would constitute a \u201cclaim[] [for] injury to person . . . within this State arising out of an act. . . within this State by the defendant^],\u201d thus conferring personal jurisdiction over defendants under G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4(3).\nThe trial court also determined alternatively that personal jurisdiction regarding plaintiff\u2019s libel and slander claim was conferred pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4(4). As we uphold the trial court ruling under G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4(3), the independent basis for the trial court\u2019s decision may be treated as surplusage and need not be discussed further.\nAbuse of process is tortious conduct occurring in the jurisdiction within which the process is served, notwithstanding that it may have originated in another jurisdiction. Vishay, 696 F.2d at 1067-68. Defendants attempt to distinguish Vishay on grounds the California plaintiff therein brought a civil breach of contract action in that state and served process for that civil action in North Carolina. Defendants argue Smith simply alerted Virginia law enforcement officials regarding plaintiffs alleged actions, and insist that neither defendant\npersonally initiated criminal actions against Plaintiff and there is no evidence that a request to extradite to North Carolina was ever asserted or that Defendants even demanded criminal action be taken.\nDefendants\u2019 argument cannot be sustained.\nWe again observe that defendants failed to assign error to the trial court\u2019s findings and thus waived any argument directed at insufficiency of the evidence to support those findings. See Concrete Service, 79 N.C. App. at 684, 340 S.E.2d at 759-60. The court found as fact that\ndefendants communicated complaints and information regarding Plaintiff to law enforcement officials in Virginia which . . . did cause North Carolina criminal process to be issued against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff to be arrested in North Carolina.\nThis uncontested finding, in addition to the court\u2019s unchallenged findings regarding defendants\u2019 contacts with this State, support imposition of personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4(4) as to plaintiff\u2019s abuse of process claim, i.e., as an out-of-state act alleged to have caused injury to plaintiff within North Carolina.\nMoreover, this Court in Moore v. City of Creedmoor, 120 N.C. App. 27, 460 S.E.2d 899 (1995), disc. review allowed, 342 N.C. 658, 467 S.E.2d 718 (1996), recently rejected an argument similar to that of defendants. In Moore, we held that evidence tending to show defendant \u201cinitiated\u201d or \u201cinstituted, procured or participated in,\u201d id. at 39, 460 S.E.2d at 906, as opposed to \u201cactually filed,\u201d an earlier nuisance abatement action brought by the city would satisfy, for purposes of surviving summary judgment, the \u201cinitiated\u201d element of a malicious prosecution claim based upon the prior civil nuisance suit. In similar vein, we believe plaintiff\u2019s detailed allegations of Smith\u2019s direct role in \u201cinitiating\u201d the Virginia criminal proceedings were sufficient for purposes of overcoming defendants\u2019 N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) to challenge to plaintiff\u2019s abuse of process claim.\nPersonal jurisdiction likewise was properly assumed over defendants under G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4(4) regarding plaintiff\u2019s intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in that North Carolina was the situs of the tortious injury alleged in each. Defendants\u2019 distribution of the newsletter in North Carolina and registering of a complaint with law enforcement authorities were actions directed at plaintiff within this state. The alleged resultant harm occurred in North Carolina, the residence of plaintiff, not Virginia, the location of defendants. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804, 811-12 (1984):\n[h]ere, the plaintiff is the focus of the activities of the defendant out of which the suit arises . . . the brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent\u2019s emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the \u201ceffects\u201d of their Florida conduct in California.\nSee also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 541 (1985) (defendant given fair warning his conduct may subject him to jurisdiction of foreign state when \u201cdefendant has \u2018purposefully directed\u2019 his activities at residents of the forum . . ., and the litigation results from alleged injuries that \u2018arise out of or relate to\u2019 those activities\u201d), and Keeton, 465 U.S. at 774, 79 L. Ed. 2d at 797 (publisher who distributes magazines in distant state accountable in that state for damages arising therein from allegedly defamatory story).\nHaving concluded plaintiff met his initial burden of a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over defendants was conferred under G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4 as to each of plaintiff\u2019s claims, we turn to the second prong of the two-part analysis applicable to personal jurisdiction questions, i.e., whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to the statute is violative of due process. Styleco, 62 N.C. App. at 526, 302 S.E.2d at 889.\nUnder our \u201clong arm\u201d statute, North Carolina courts may obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Trust Go. v. McDaniel, 18 N.C. App. 644, 646, 197 S.E.2d 556, 558 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. 510, 517-18, 251 S.E.2d 610, 615-16 (1979). Due process requires that the prospective defendant have \u201cminimum contacts\u201d with the forum state \u201csuch that maintenance of the suit does not offend \u2018traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u2019 \u201d International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95, 102 (1945) (citations omitted). The existence of \u201cminimum contacts\u201d depends upon the particular facts of each individual case. Coleman, 296 N.C. at 517-18, 251 S.E.2d at 615-16. Among appropriate factors to be considered are the quantity and nature of the contact, the relationship between the contact and the cause of action, the interest of the forum state, the convenience of the parties, and the location of witnesses and material evidence. Phoenix America Corp. v. Brissey, 46 N.C. App. 527, 531, 265 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1980) (citations omitted).\nWe have determined above that, while the quantity of defendants\u2019 contacts with North Carolina may not have been extensive, they were sufficient for purposes of G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4, especially considering that the alleged injury under each claim was suffered by plaintiff within this State. See Centura Bank, 119 N.C. App. at 213-14, 458 S.E.2d at 18. This latter circumstance demonstrates a decided relationship between the contacts and plaintiff\u2019s claims and likewise favors plaintiff when weighing factors of the convenience of parties and location of witnesses and evidence. Moreover, North Carolina has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from local injury caused by the tor-tious conduct of foreign citizens:\nIn light of the powerful public interest of a forum state in protecting its citizens against out-of-state tortfeasors, the court has more readily found assertions of jurisdiction constitutional in tort cases.\nCiba-Geigy Corp. v. Barnett, 76 N.C. App. 605, 609, 334 S.E.2d 91, 93 (1985) (state has strong interest in protecting persons doing business in North Carolina against employee fraud notwithstanding that contact limited to mailing fraudulent claims into this state). In sum, we do not believe maintenance of plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendants, under the circumstances sub judice, in any way \u201coffends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.\u201d International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 90 L. Ed. at 102.\nFinally, we address defendants\u2019 contention that the trial court erred by denying their motion to stay the instant action pending resolution of the Virginia complaint filed by Smith against plaintiff. The decision of whether to order such a stay under G.S. \u00a7 l-75.12(a) was committed to the court\u2019s sound discretion. Management, Inc. v. Development Co., 46 N.C. App. 707, 711, 266 S.E.2d 368, 370, disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 93, 273 S.E.2d 299 (1980). Electing to treat defendants\u2019 assignment of error directed to this issue as a petition for writ of certiorari, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-75.12(c) (review of denial of motion is \u201cby means of a writ of certiorari\u201d), we perceive no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendants\u2019 motion.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Ann L. Hester and Edward T. Hinson, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.", "Morris, York, Williams, Surles, & Brearley, by John P. Barringer and Joseph N. Crosswhite, for Defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KURT HART SAXON, Plaintiff v. COURTNEY SMITH AND COURTNEY SMITH, LTD., Defendants\nNo. COA95-1312\n(Filed 21 January 1997)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 112 (NCI4th) \u2014 jurisdiction\u2014motion to dismiss \u2014 right of immediate appeal\nAn interested party has the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to jurisdiction over the person or property of defendant, but such appeal is limited to a determination of whether North Carolina statutes permit our courts to entertain the action and, if so, whether that violates due process. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-277(10.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7 147.\nAppealability of order relating to transfer, on jurisdictional grounds, of cause from one state court to another. 78 ALR2d 1204.\n2. Courts \u00a7 15.2 (NCI4th)\u2014 personal jurisdiction \u2014 sale of Iron Frame Henry rifle \u2014 publication of newsletter\u2014 actions for libel and slander, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress\nThe trial court did not err in an action for libel and slander, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a dispute over the purchase of a collectible gun and the publication of a newsletter by denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiffs claims may be properly characterized as alleging injuries to person or property within the purview of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4; libel and slander is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated and defendants admitted that the newsletter which contained the allegedly defamatory material was distributed to approximately 100 residents in North Carolina; abuse of process occurs within the jurisdiction in which the process is served, notwithstanding that it may have originated in another jurisdiction and, although defendant contends that he simply alerted Virginia authorities to plaintiff\u2019s actions, the trial court\u2019s unchallenged findings were that defendants communicated complaints and information regarding plaintiff to law \u2022 enforcement officials in Virginia which caused North Carolina criminal process to be issued; as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims, defendants\u2019 distribution of the newsletter in North Carolina and registering of a complaint with law enforcement authorities were actions directed at plaintiff within this state and the alleged resultant harm occurred in North Carolina.\nAm Jur 2d, Process \u00a7\u00a7 178, 186-194.\nIn personam jurisdiction, in libel and slander action, over nonresident who mailed allegedly defamatory letter from outside state. 83 ALR4th 1006.\n3. Courts \u00a7 14 (NCI4th) \u2014 personal jurisdiction \u2014 sale of Iron Frame Henry rifle \u2014 publication of newsletter \u2014 minimum contacts\nThe exercise of personal jurisdiction over Virginia defendants on claims for libel and slander, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from a dispute over the purchase of a collectible gun and the publication of a newsletter did not violate due process where the quantity of defendants\u2019 contacts with North Carolina may not have been extensive, but was sufficient for purposes of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4, especially considering that the alleged injury under each claim was suffered by plaintiff within North Carolina.\nAm Jur 2d, Process \u00a7\u00a7 178, 186-194.\nPropriety, under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment, of forum state\u2019s assertion or exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendant in defamation action. 79 L. Ed. 2d 992.\n4. Courts \u00a7 19 (NCI4th)\u2014 Virginia action for fraud and breach of warranty \u2014 North Carolina claims including defamation \u2014 N.C. stay denied \u2014 no abuse of process\nThere was no abuse of discretion where a trial court denied a motion to stay a North Carolina action pending resolution of a Virginia complaint. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-75.12(a).\nAm Jur 2d, Courts \u00a7 95.\nStay of civil proceedings pending determination of action in another state or country. 19 ALR2d 301.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 17 August 1995 by Judge John M. Gardner in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 1996.\nJames, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Ann L. Hester and Edward T. Hinson, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nMorris, York, Williams, Surles, & Brearley, by John P. Barringer and Joseph N. Crosswhite, for Defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0163-01", "first_page_order": 201, "last_page_order": 212 }