Case Title: Bradshaw v. Maiden

Citation: 

Docket Number: 52A23

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2024-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 52A23 Filed 22 March 2024 JAMES W. BRADSHAW; CARLA O. BRADSHAW; RESORT RETAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.; E.C. BROADFOOT; CHRISTINA DUNN CHANDRA; THOMAS F. EGAN; CHARLES EGGERT; MARK P. GARSIDE; DR. JAMES J. GREEN, JR.; ROBERT K. GRUNEWALD; RONALD HOLMES; DAVID LAUCK; CURT W. LEMKAU, JR.; EVAN MIDDLETON; JOSHUA M. NELSON; CHRISTIAN C. NUGENT; REGINA H. PAKRADOONI, as Executrix of the Estate of PETER B. PAKRADOONI, deceased; FORD PERRY; MARCELLO G. PORCELLI; ADAN RENDON; RICHARD H. STEVENSON; PAUL STOKES; LAWRENCE J. THEIL; R. MITCHELL WICKHAM; WILLIAM H. WILLIAMSON, III; WILLIAM K. WRIGHT, JR.; ALEX M. WOLF; CHAFFIN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and SOLARIS CAPITAL LLC v. STEPHEN E. MAIDEN; MAIDEN CAPITAL, LLC; and SS&C TECHNOLOGIES, INC., successor by merger to SS&C FUND ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LLC (a/k/a SS&C FUND SERVICES) Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 287 N.C. App. 393, 2022 WL 17985671 (2022), affirming orders and opinions dated 10 August 2015, 1 September 2020, and 15 September 2020, and entered on 20 August 2015, 4 September 2020, and 30 September 2020, respectively, by Chief Business Court Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, after the case was designated a mandatory complex business case by the Chief Justice pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4(b). Heard in the Supreme Court on 14 February 2024. Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by Matthew D. Quinn and James A. Roberts, III, and Mauney PLLC, by Gary V. Mauney, for plaintiff-appellants. BRADSHAW V. MAIDEN Opinion of the Court -2- Alston & Bird LLP, by Ryan P. Ethridge and Michael A. Kaeding; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP, by Rober A. Atkins, pro hac vice, and Jeffrey J. Recher, pro hac vice, for defendant-appellee SS&C Technologies, Inc. PER CURIAM. Justice DIETZ did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See Batson v. Coastal Res. Comm’n, 385 N.C. 328, 892 S.E.2d 589 (2023) (per curiam) (affirming by an equally divided vote a Court of Appeals decision without precedential value). AFFIRMED.