{
  "id": 8527439,
  "name": "WINSTON-SALEM JOINT VENTURE, A Partnership v. CATHY'S BOUTIQUE, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Winston-Salem Joint Venture v. Cathy's Boutique, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1985-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8421DC437",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "675",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. App. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": "263 S.E. 2d 323",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549535
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "494"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/45/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "881"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521898
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0488-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 4564,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.219946748406249e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5101812885616112
    },
    "sha256": "ecd13820f4628e1e4c5f0bba7daff4f8d642fe4796f2ba5c07a8946e2e1f9fbf",
    "simhash": "1:3d4b5c7703fa35ed",
    "word_count": 759
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:04.939100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WINSTON-SALEM JOINT VENTURE, A Partnership v. CATHY\u2019S BOUTIQUE, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nI\nWe first consider the interlocutory nature of this appeal. As grounds for its motion to dismiss Joint Venture\u2019s action for breach of lease, Cathy\u2019s asserts that the action is a compulsory counterclaim to Cathy\u2019s libel action filed 13 October 1983. In Atkins v. Nash, 61 N.C. App. 488, 300 S.E. 2d 880 (1983) we said:\nOur Supreme Court has treated refusal to abate on grounds of a prior pending action as immediately appealable. [Citations omitted.] Subsequent to the adoption of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a), relating to compulsory counterclaims, that Court has treated denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of a prior action pending as a motion pursuant to that rule, and has allowed immediate review. [Citation omitted.]\nId. at 489, 300 S.E. 2d at 881. Accordingly, we consider this appeal on its merits.\nII\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant Cathy\u2019s motion to dismiss Joint Venture\u2019s action for breach of lease filed 3 November 1983, as a compulsory counterclaim to the libel action filed by Cathy\u2019s on 13 October 1983. We find no error.\nG.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a) states, in pertinent part\nA pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party\u2019s claim.\nThe basis of Cathy\u2019s argument is that the action for breach of lease \u201carises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter\u201d of Cathy\u2019s libel action, which was filed before the action for breach of lease, and is properly a compulsory counterclaim. We do not agree.\nIn order to find that an action must be filed as a compulsory counterclaim pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a), a court must first find a logical relationship between the factual backgrounds of the two claims. In addition, the court must find a logical relationship between the nature of the actions. Rule 13(a) is a tool designed to further judicial economy. The tool should not be used to combine actions that, despite their origin in a common factual background, have no logical relationship to each other. Apartments, Inc. v. Landrum, 45 N.C. App. 490, 494, 263 S.E. 2d 323, 325 (1980).\nHere, the only relationship existing between the fact, claims and nature of the action is the landlord-tenant relationship. Here, we find no logical nexus between the action for libel and the action for breach of lease which would require that the action for breach of lease be filed as a compulsory counterclaim pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a).\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled and the order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss as a compulsory counterclaim is affirmed.\nJudges WEBB and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready by Penni L. Pearson for the plaintiff-appellee.",
      "William Y Wilkins, for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WINSTON-SALEM JOINT VENTURE, A Partnership v. CATHY\u2019S BOUTIQUE, INC.\nNo. 8421DC437\n(Filed 5 February 1985)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 13\u2014 libel action \u2014action for breach of lease \u2014 no compulsory counterclaim\nThere was no logical connection between defendant tenant\u2019s action for libel and plaintiff landlord\u2019s action for breach of lease which would require that the action for breach of lease be filed as a compulsory counterclaim pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(a).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Alexander, Judge. Order entered 23 January 1984 in District Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 January 1985.\nThis is a civil action in which plaintiff, Winston-Salem Joint Venture (Joint Venture), seeks damages from defendant Cathy\u2019s Boutique, Incorporated (Cathy\u2019s), for breach of a lease agreement.\nOn 13 October 1983, Cathy\u2019s filed an action against Joint Venture and other named defendants alleging libel and unfair and deceptive trade practices arising out of a cartoon published in the Hanes Mall Herald, a newspaper containing news, advertisements and promotional material for tenants and customers of Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem. (83CVS5410)\nOn 3 November 1983, Joint Venture filed the action for breach of lease that is the subject of this appeal. (83CVD5764)\nOn 5 January 1984, Cathy\u2019s filed a motion to dismiss Joint Venture\u2019s action on the lease pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1) and 13(a). This motion to dismiss was denied on 23 January 1984 by the Honorable Abner Alexander, Chief District Court Judge.\nCathy\u2019s appealed and Joint Venture filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.\nPetree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready by Penni L. Pearson for the plaintiff-appellee.\nWilliam Y Wilkins, for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 699,
  "last_page_order": 701
}