{ "id": 12130863, "name": "INTERIOR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; MARIE AUTRY; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants; SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants; BET PLANT SERVICES INC., d/b/a BPS EQUIPMENT RENTAL & SALES, Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY, d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; DAVID A. MARTIN, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, NORTH CAROLINA; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants; COLONIAL MATERIALS OF FAYETTEVILLE, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Interior Distributors, Inc. v. Autry", "decision_date": "2000-11-07", "docket_number": "No. COA99-1175", "first_page": "541", "last_page": "544", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "140 N.C. App. 541" } ], "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": "299 S.E.2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "780" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520808 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/60/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251", "parenthetical": "quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11889739 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442", "parenthetical": "quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 S.E.2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "856", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" }, { "page": "856", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. App. 808", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11242203 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/136/0808-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "669" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11092295 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572343 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 S.E.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917406 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0730-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 428, "char_count": 8772, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5232346301313376e-07, "percentile": 0.8117133469943615 }, "sha256": "1b63b0e99eb7d758a0891c4a89d9dcd14f6d68d7e68d88bf68ffc973682c2c89", "simhash": "1:c139d6ef1c3b88db", "word_count": 1338 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:32.795698+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and FULLER concur." ], "parties": [ "INTERIOR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; MARIE AUTRY; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants BET PLANT SERVICES INC., d/b/a BPS EQUIPMENT RENTAL & SALES, Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY, d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; DAVID A. MARTIN, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, NORTH CAROLINA; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants COLONIAL MATERIALS OF FAYETTEVILLE, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nDefendant Sigma Construction Company, Inc. (Sigma) entered into a contract with the State of North Carolina through its political subdivision Cumberland County for construction of the Cumberland County Coliseum (the project). In December 1995, Sigma, as general contractor, entered into a Payment Bond Agreement with defendant The American Insurance Company (American) for $12,349,010.00. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-27 (1995). The Bond Agreement listed Sigma as the Principal and Cumberland County as the Owner.\nOn or about 22 February 1996, Sigma entered into a subcontract agreement with defendant James J. Autry (Autry) d/b/a Autry Drywall & Construction Company, whereby Autry would provide labor and materials for drywall work on the project. Between August 1996 and May 1997, Autry entered into contracts with plaintiffs Interior Distributors, Inc. (Interior Distributors); Specialties, Inc. (Specialties); BET Plant Services Inc., d/b/a BPS Equipment Rental & Sales (BET); and Colonial Materials of Fayetteville, Inc. (Colonial) to supply materials and rental equipment for the project. Autry\u2019s contract with Sigma was terminated. Autry failed to fully pay plaintiffs, and in September and October 1997, each of the plaintiffs filed complaints against Autry, Sigma, and American. BET also joined as a defendant David Martin as guarantor for Sigma. On 1 December 1997, defendants Sigma and American answered, made motions to dismiss, and raised affirmative defenses against Interior Distributors and Specialties and asserted cross-claims against Autry. On 8 December 1997, Autry filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Thereafter, on 31 December 1997, defendants Sigma, Martin, and American answered, made a motion to dismiss, and raised affirmative defenses against BET and asserted cross-claims against Autry. On 5 January 1998, defendants Sigma and American answered, made a motion to dismiss, and raised affirmative defenses against Colonial and asserted cross-claims against Autry.\nOn 16 March 1998, the trial court, citing Autry\u2019s proceedings in bankruptcy, sua sponte entered Judgments of Discontinuance in Interior Distributors\u2019 and Specialties\u2019 cases. Those cases were thus closed \u201cwith leave to any party to reinstitute the same by motion in the cause if the said claims are not fully adjudicated.\u201d Similarly, on 20 April 1998, the trial court, again citing the bankruptcy proceeding, sua sponte entered Administrative Orders discontinuing the BET and Colonial suits. Those cases likewise were closed \u201cwith leave to any party to reinstitute the same by motion in the cause if the said claims are not fully adjudicated.\u201d On 23 September 1998, plaintiffs made \u201cMotion[s] for Determination of Applicability of Stay and for Relief From Stay\u201d in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Autry\u2019s Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on 20 October 1998, and on 28 October 1998 the bankruptcy court entered an order stating that the automatic stay had terminated and that plaintiffs\u2019 claims against defendants Sigma, American, and Martin could be pursued.\nOn 13 January 1999, defendants voluntarily dismissed with prejudice their cross-claims against Autry in all four cases. Plaintiffs each filed notices and motions for reinstatement on 29 January 1999. Plaintiffs\u2019 motions were consolidated for hearing, and on 6 May 1999, the trial court entered orders allowing plaintiffs\u2019 motions. Defendants Sigma and American appeal from all four orders; defendant Martin joins in the appeal from the order for BET.\nThe initial matter to be determined is whether defendants\u2019 appeal from these orders is interlocutory.\n\u201cAn order or judgment is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy.\u201d N.C. Dept. of Transportation v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 733, 460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995). The rule against interlocutory appeals 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. Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978).\nTurner v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, -, 526 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2000).\nThe orders from which defendants now appeal do not entirely dispose of the cases. In fact, the orders do not dispose of any issue in any case; they merely allow plaintiffs to proceed in their actions against defendants. The orders are therefore interlocutory.\nAlthough there is generally no right to immediate appeal from an interlocutory order, an interlocutory order is appealable in two instances. First, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277 and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27(d), an interlocutory order is appealable if the order \u201caffects a substantial right.\u201d \u201cA substantial right is a right which will be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before the final judgment.\u201d Second, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), an interlocutory order is appealable in an action with multiple parties and multiple claims \u201cif the trial court enters a final judgment as to a party or a claim and certifies there is no just reason for delay.\u201d When an interlocutory order is appealed, \u201cit is the appellant\u2019s burden to present argument in his brief to this Court to support acceptance of the appeal.\"\nLee v. Mutual Community Savings Bank, 136 N.C. App. 808, \u2014, 525 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2000) (internal citations omitted).\nThe whole of defendants\u2019 argument supporting their contention that they are properly before this Court is as follows: \u201cThe granting of Plaintiffs-Appellees motions affects Defendants-Appellants\u2019 substantial rights and unfairly punishes them if they are forced to continue the defense of this action.\u201d This attempt at persuading this Court that a substantial right of defendants will be adversely affected absent immediate review fails to satisfy defendant\u2019s \u201c \u2018burden to present argument in [their] brief to this Court to support acceptance of the appeal.\u2019 \u201d Id. at -, 525 S.E.2d at 856 (citation omitted).\nRegardless, it has long been the law in this state that \u201cthe \u2018avoidance of a rehearing or trial is not a \u201csubstantial right\u201d entitling a party to an immediate appeal.\u2019 \u201d Banner v. Hatcher, 124 N.C. App. 439, 442, 477 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1996) (quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983)). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.\nDismissed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and FULLER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Vann & Sheridan, LLP, by Paul A. Sheridan and Nan E. Hannah, for plaintiff-appellees.", "Safran Law Offices, by Perry R. Safran, for defendant-appellants Sigma Construction Company, Inc., The American Insurance Company, and David A. Martin." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "INTERIOR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; MARIE AUTRY; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants BET PLANT SERVICES INC., d/b/a BPS EQUIPMENT RENTAL & SALES, Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY, d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION and also d/b/a AUTRY CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; DAVID A. MARTIN, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, NORTH CAROLINA; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants COLONIAL MATERIALS OF FAYETTEVILLE, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES J. AUTRY d/b/a AUTRY DRYWALL & CONSTRUCTION, INC; SIGMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as surety, Defendants\nNo. COA99-1175\n(Filed 7 November 2000)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 orders allowing plaintiffs to proceed in their actions \u2014 interlocutory orders \u2014 no substantial right\nDefendants\u2019 appeal from the orders allowing plaintiffs to proceed in their actions against defendants Sigma, American, and Martin to recover payment for materials and rental equipment supplied for the Cumberland County Coliseum project, after the bankruptcy court terminated the automatic stay entered when defendant Autry went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, is dismissed as interlocutory because: (1) the orders do not dispose of any issue in any case; and (2) the avoidance of a rehearing or trial is not a substantial right entitling a party to an immediate appeal.\nAppeal by defendants Sigma Construction Company, Inc., The American Insurance Company, and David A. Martin from orders entered 6 May 1999 by Judge B. Craig Ellis in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 October 2000.\nVann & Sheridan, LLP, by Paul A. Sheridan and Nan E. Hannah, for plaintiff-appellees.\nSafran Law Offices, by Perry R. Safran, for defendant-appellants Sigma Construction Company, Inc., The American Insurance Company, and David A. Martin." }, "file_name": "0541-01", "first_page_order": 573, "last_page_order": 576 }