Court Opinion

ID: 9895432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 13:06:53.324152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:35.006971
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                      No. COA23-372

                               Filed 7 November 2023

Iredell County, No. 22CVS1518

CRAIG CLAPPER, Plaintiff,

              v.

PRESS GANEY ASSOCIATES, LLC and AZALEA PARENT HOLDINGS, LP,
Defendants.

        Appeal by defendants from order entered 2 December 2022 by Judge David L.

Hall in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 October

2023.

        Blanco Tackabery & Matamoros, PA, by Peter J. Juran, and Chad A. Archer,
        for the plaintiff-appellee.

        Littler Mendelson, P.C., by Stephen D. Dellinger, and Elizabeth H. Pratt, for
        the defendants-appellants.

        TYSON, Judge.

        Press Ganey Associates, LLC (“Press Ganey”) and Azalea Parent Holdings, LP

(“Azalea”) (collectively “Defendants”) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their

Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss Craig Clapper’s (“Clapper”) complaint. We reverse

the trial court’s order and remand.

                                 I.     Background

        Press Ganey is an Indiana limited liability company, which is licensed to do
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

business in North Carolina.      Azalea is a Delaware limited partnership with a

principal place of business located in California.

      Clapper entered into an employment agreement with Press Ganey on 1

September 2015. Press Ganey was in the process of entering into a Membership

Interest Purchase Agreement between Press Ganey, Healthcare Performance

Improvement, LLC (“HPI”), and the owners/members of HPI. Clapper was a member

of HPI, and was “the sole employee of Craig Clapper LLC, an Arizona limited liability

company[.]”

      The exclusive Employment Agreement between Clapper and Press Ganey

specified Clapper would perform “consulting services on behalf of HPI” and would

have “executive-level duties, responsibilities, expectations, and authority.”      The

Employment Agreement specified a three-year term ending on 31 August 2018, but

was automatically extended for an additional one-year term, unless either party gave

sixty days’ prior written notice to terminate. Clapper and Press Ganey also agreed

to bring “any disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to th[e] [Employment]

Agreement” in Delaware and to submit to “the exclusive jurisdiction of federal and

state courts” in Delaware in the Employment Agreement.

      Azalea sought to amend its Initial Agreement to admit additional limited

partners, including Clapper. Azalea executed an Amended and Restated Limited

Partnership Agreement (“Azalea LP Agreement”), which provided a jury trial waiver

and provisions specifying choice of law, venue, and submission to the jurisdiction of

                                          -2-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

Delaware. Clapper signed the agreement on 23 July 2019, while purportedly residing

in North Carolina.     Many other limited partners also signed the Azalea LP

Agreement. Azalea’s general partner signed the letter on 25 July 2021 while in

Delaware.

      Azalea sent Clapper a letter on 16 March 2020, in which Azalea intended to

grant him equity shares in Azalea. Azalea and Clapper executed an agreement

(“Grant Agreement”) on 8 April 2020. The Grant Agreement provided Clapper would

receive 26,851 time-vesting units (also referred to as “Class B Units”). The Class B

Units were granted as non-cash compensation to retain qualified employees and

operated as an “Incentive Equity Plan.”

      The time-vesting schedule vested the Class B Units on the following dates: (1)

14,500 units on 16 September 2021; (2) 9,666 units on 16 September 2022; and, (3)

2,685 units on 16 September 2023. The agreement also provided Azalea retained the

right “to redeem all or any portion of the vested” units if Clapper’s “employment

terminate[d] for any reason[.]”

      In consideration for the grant of Class B Units from Azalea, Clapper agreed to

be bound by additional restrictive covenants. The fair market value at the time of

transfer of the units was also listed as $0.00. If Clapper was terminated before all

units vested, the unvested units would return to Azalea.

      The Grant Agreement does not separately contain an express choice of law or

forum selection clause, but it refers to and incorporates by reference the terms of the

                                          -3-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

Azalea LP Agreement, which contains provisions regarding choice of law, jury trial

waiver, venue, and submission to the jurisdiction of Delaware.

      Press Ganey instructed Clapper on 22 December 2020 to “resign from all

positions as an officer and/or director (if any) of each of the entities of the Company

and all of its respective affiliates” by 31 December 2020. Press Ganey also intended

to transition Clapper to different employment tasks and to terminate Clapper’s

employment effective 30 September 2021.

      Press Ganey, Azalea, and Clapper executed an Amendment to Employment

Agreement, Transition Agreement, and Release and Waiver of Claims (“Termination

Agreement”) on 22 December 2020. The Termination Agreement provided Clapper

would receive the 14,500 Class B Units on 16 September 2021, contained the

Delaware choice of law and forum selection clauses, and also referenced the original

Employment Agreement between Press Ganey and Clapper.

      After Clapper’s employment was terminated on 30 September 2021, Azalea

sent Clapper a letter on 21 December 2021. Azalea intended to exercise its “Call

Right” and purchase Clapper’s remaining Class B Units and asserted:

                    Pursuant to Section 3 of the Class B Unit Award
             Agreement between you and Azalea Parent Holdings LP
             (the “Partnership”), dated March 16, 2020 (the [Grant
             Agreement]), the unvested portion of your Class B Units
             are automatically forfeited without consideration upon
             termination of your employment with the Company.
             Following your termination of employment, you continued
             to hold 1,300.00 Class A Units and 7,250.00 vested Class B
             Units in the Partnership.

                                         -4-
                      CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                 Opinion of the Court

                   Further, pursuant to Section 4 of the [Grant]
            Agreement and Section 10.1 of the Limited Partnership
            Agreement of Azalea Parent Holdings LP (the “LP
            Agreement”), this notice letter (the “Call Notice”) hereby
            informs you that on December 21, 2021 the Partnership
            has elected to exercise its Call Right (as defined in the LP
            Agreement) with respect to your Class B Units that were
            vested at the date of your termination of employment. The
            “Call Price” as defined in the LP Agreement was $0.00 per
            Class B Unit as of the date the Partnership exercised its
            Call Right and, accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the
            LP Agreement these Class B Units respectively are
            redeemed for an aggregate Call Price of $0.00. As such, no
            payment will be made in regard to your vested Class B
            Units. For the avoidance of doubt, this Call Notice
            constitutes a “Call Notice” for purposes of the LP
            Agreement.

      Clapper filed a complaint against Defendants in the Iredell County Superior

Court on 23 June 2022. Clapper asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violation of the North Carolina

Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”). See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.1 to 95-25.25 (2021).

      Defendants moved to dismiss Clapper’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Rule

12(b)(6), and Rule 9 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure on 6 September

2022. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rules 9 and 12 (2021). Defendants’ motions

asserted Clapper brought his claims in the improper venue; dismissal was warranted

because Clapper’s claims arose under North Carolina law, which was violated the

Delaware choice of law provisions in the contracts; and Clapper’s fraud claim failed

to contain the allegations in the requisite particularity, as required per Rule 9.

                                        -5-
                          CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                    Opinion of the Court

Defendants also moved to strike Clapper’s jury demand pursuant to Rules 12(g) and

(f).

         The trial court granted Defendants’ Rule 9 motion regarding Clapper’s fraud

claim and dismissed the claim without prejudice for Clapper to refile his fraud claim

within thirty days. The trial court denied Defendants’ motions regarding Rules

12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). The trial court deferred ruling on Defendants’ motion to strike

the jury trial, but Defendants were allowed to renew their claim before the judge

assigned to try the case. The trial court’s order ruling on each of Defendants’ motions

was filed on 2 December 2022. The trial court’s order does not contain a Rule 54(b)

certification as immediately appealable.

         Defendants timely filed a notice of appeal on 30 December 2022, seeking review

of the trial court’s denial of its 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss. Defendants also filed a

Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“PWC”) on 26 April 2023, seeking this Court to also

hear its admittedly interlocutory denial of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion. N.C. R. App.

P. 21.

                    II.   Jurisdiction – Interlocutory Appeal

         The trial court’s order is interlocutory. “An interlocutory order is one made

during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for

further action by the trial court to settle and determine the entire controversy.”

Bartley v. City of High Point, 381 N.C. 287, 293, 873 S.E.2d 525, 532 (2022) (citation

omitted). “As a general rule, interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.”

                                           -6-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp., 363 N.C. 555, 558, 681 S.E.2d 770, 773 (2009)

(citation omitted).

      Interlocutory orders, however, can be immediately appealable “when the

appeal involves a substantial right of the appellant[,] and the appellant will be

injured if the error is not corrected before final judgment.” N.C. Dep’t of Transp. v.

Stagecoach Vill., 360 N.C. 46, 47-48, 619 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2005) (citations omitted).

See also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(b)(3)(a) (2021). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-

277 allows a party to immediately appeal an order that either (1) affects a substantial

right or (2) constitutes an adverse ruling as to personal jurisdiction.”       Wall v.

Automoney, Inc., 284 N.C. App. 514, 519, 877 S.E.2d 37, 44-45 (2023) (citation and

quotation marks omitted).

      This Court has repeatedly held: “Although a denial of a motion to dismiss is an

interlocutory order, where the issue pertains to applying a forum selection clause, our

case law establishes that defendant may nevertheless immediately appeal the order

because to hold otherwise would deprive him of a substantial right.” Hickox v. R&G

Grp. Int’l, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 510, 511, 588 S.E.2d 566, 567 (2003); Mark Grp. Int’l,

Inc. v. Still, 151 N.C. App. 565, 566 n.1, 566 S.E.2d 160, 161 n.1 (2002) (“[O]ur case

law establishes firmly that an appeal from a motion to dismiss for improper venue

based upon a jurisdiction or venue selection clause dispute deprives the appellant of

a substantial right that would be lost.”).

      This Court possesses appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of

                                             -7-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss. Id.; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-

27(b)(3)(a).

                        III.     Issue – Improper Venue

       Defendants argue the trial court improperly denied their Rule 12(b)(3) motion

to dismiss for improper venue.

                               A. Standard of Review

       “Our Court reviews an order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue

in such cases using the abuse of discretion standard.” SED Holding, LLC v. 3 Star

Properties, LLC, 246 N.C. App. 632, 636, 784 S.E.2d 627, 630 (2016) (citation omitted).

                                     B. Analysis

       “In general, a court interprets a contract according to the intent of the parties

to the contract.” Cable Tel Servs., Inc. v. Overland Contr’g., Inc., 154 N.C. App. 639,

642, 574 S.E.2d 31, 33 (2002).

       The enforceability of forum selection clauses that specify the parties’ disputes

must be litigated in another state’s courts has varied in North Carolina case law. Id.

(“Historically, North Carolina case law was unclear about the enforceability of forum

selection clauses that fix venue in other states.”). Our Supreme Court has stated:

“Forum selection clauses do not deprive the courts of jurisdiction but rather allow a

court to refuse to exercise that jurisdiction in recognition of the parties’ choice of a

different forum.” Johnston Cty. v. R.N. Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 93, 414 S.E.2d 30,

33 (1992).

                                          -8-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

             In recent years, there has been an abundance of state and
             federal cases enforcing forum selection clauses. The
             leading case in this area is Bremen. In Bremen, the United
             States Supreme Court [sic] enunciated a standard for the
             enforceability of forum selection clauses. The Court held
             that forum selection clauses are “prima facie valid and
             should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the
             resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the
             circumstances.” The Court further held that the forum
             selection clause in the contract should be enforced “absent
             a strong showing that it should be set aside . . . [, a]
             show[ing] that enforcement would be unreasonable and
             unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as
             fraud or overreaching.” Additionally, the Court held that a
             forum selection clause should be invalid if enforcement
             would “contravene a strong public policy of the forum in
             which suit is brought.”

Perkins v. CCH Computax, Inc., 333 N.C. 140, 144, 423 S.E.2d 780, 783 (1992)

(internal citations omitted) (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1,

10, 15, 32 L.Ed.2d 513, 520, 523 (1972)).

      After Perkins, our General Assembly enacted legislation regarding whether

contracts entered into within North Carolina requiring litigation in a forum outside

of North Carolina are enforceable: “any provision in a contract entered into in North

Carolina that requires the prosecution of any action or the arbitration of any dispute

that arises from the contract to be instituted or heard in another state is against

public policy and is void and unenforceable.”            N.C. Gen. Stat. § 22B-3 (2021)

(emphasis supplied).

      This Court has addressed whether the subsequent enactment of N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 22B-3 nullifies or limits our Supreme Court’s holding in Perkins:

                                            -9-
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

             While [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 22B-3 clearly limits the holding
             in Perkins, the presumption of validity of forum selection
             clauses, i.e. the test requiring that a plaintiff seeking to
             avoid enforcement of a choice of governing law or forum
             clause entered into outside of North Carolina meet a
             “heavy burden and must demonstrate that the clause was
             the product of fraud or unequal bargaining power or that
             enforcement of the clause would be unfair or
             unreasonable,” remains applicable.

Parson v. Oasis Legal Fin., LLC, 214 N.C. App. 125, 135, 715 S.E.2d 240, 246 (2011)

(first quoting Perkins, 333 N.C. at 146, 423 S.E.2d at 784; then citing Cox v. Dine-A-

Mate, Inc., 129 N.C. App. 773, 501 S.E.2d 353 (1998); and then Strategic Outsourcing,

Inc. v. Stacks, 176 N.C. App. 247, 625 S.E.2d 800 (2006)).

      The initial inquiry regarding whether the holding in Perkins or N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 22B-3 applies depends on where the contract was entered into. Szymczyk v. Signs

Now Corp., 168 N.C. App. 182, 187, 606 S.E.2d 728, 733 (2005) (“The threshold

question for determining if the cont[r]act’s forum selection clause violates North

Carolina law, therefore, is a determination of where the instant contract was

formed.”).

      This test was formulated ninety-two years ago:

             [T]he test of the place of a contract is as to the place at
             which the last act was done by either of the parties
             essential to a meeting of minds. Until this act was done
             there was no contract, and upon its being done at a given
             place, the contract became existent at the place where the
             act was done. Until then there was no contract.

Bundy v. Commercial Credit Co., 200 N.C. 511, 515, 157 S.E. 860, 862 (1931)

                                         - 10 -
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                  Opinion of the Court

(citations omitted).

      This Court relied on Bundy when determining whether a contract was formed

in Florida and Perkins applied:

                    In Bundy, a contract negotiated by the North
             Carolina office of a Maryland company was not deemed
             existent until the final signature was made by the
             company’s officers in Maryland. Id. at 514-15, 157 S.E. at
             862.
                    Here, the terms of the franchise agreement were
             discussed with representatives of defendant and a form
             agreement was signed by plaintiffs in North Carolina. The
             contract was then returned to Florida and defendant’s
             president signed the agreement. Just as in Bundy, the last
             act of signing the contract was an essential element to
             formation. As the contract was formed in Florida, N.C.
             Gen. Stat. § 22B-3 does not apply to the forum selection
             clause in the instant agreement.

Szymczyk, 168 N.C. App. at 187, 606 S.E.2d at 733.

      Here, the “last act” was committed in Delaware when Azalea’s general

partners signed the Azalea LP Agreement. Id. At the hearing held on 28 November

2022 regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants’ attorney explained:

             And as a result of that, because that is a Delaware company
             in which Mr. – in which [Clapper] [is a] member[ ], all
             parties are in Delaware. And there is nothing to indicate
             showing that the last act of that was done in North
             Carolina. In fact, if you look at those 153 pages [of the LP
             agreement] I just gave you, you will see that Mr. Clapper’s
             signature is somewhere in the middle of that.

      Although Clapper signed the agreement on 23 July 2019 while residing in

North Carolina, Azalea’s general partner did not sign the agreement until 25 July

                                         - 11 -
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

2021 while located in Delaware. The Azalea LP Agreement provided a jury trial

waiver and provisions specifying choice of law, venue, and submission to the

jurisdiction of Delaware.

      The Grant Agreement, which granted Clapper the Class B Units in Azalea,

incorporated the terms of the Azalea LP Agreement. The final page of the Grant

Agreement states: “I acknowledge the grant of the Granted Units and all of the terms

and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the LP Agreement[,] and the Plan, the

receipt of which I acknowledge.” The Grant Agreement also required Clapper to

acknowledge he had “reviewed the Agreement, the LP Agreement[,] and the Plan and

have had the opportunity to raise any questions or concerns with the Company about

the Granted Units.” Clapper affixed his signature directly below that statement to

bind his assent to the contract.

      The “last act” was committed in Delaware, as opposed to North Carolina.

Bundy, 200 N.C. at 515, 157 S.E. at 862. Perkins applies instead of N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 22B-3. Perkins, 333 N.C. at 144, 423 S.E.2d at 783; Parson, 214 N.C. App. at 135,

715 S.E.2d at 246; Szymczyk, 168 N.C. App. at 187, 606 S.E.2d at 733. Defendants

have shown the trial court erred by denying Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) motion to

dismiss. See Szymczyk, 168 N.C. App. at 187, 606 S.E.2d at 733.

                                   IV.   Conclusion

      The trial court should have allowed Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) motion to

dismiss for improper venue. See id.; Perkins, 333 N.C. at 144, 423 S.E.2d at 783;

                                            - 12 -
                       CLAPPER V. PRESS GANEY ASSOCS., LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

Parson, 214 N.C. App. at 135, 715 S.E.2d at 246; Bundy, 200 N.C. at 515, 157 S.E. at

862. The trial court’s order is reversed.

      Defendants’ successful Rule 12(b)(3) argument disposes of all of Clapper’s

claims against Defendants asserted in North Carolina’s courts. It is unnecessary to

issue a writ of certiorari. Upon remand, the trial court shall enter an order granting

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss without prejudice to Clapper bringing or

asserting his claims against Defendants in an appropriate forum according to the

Azalea LP Agreement. It is so ordered.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      Judge DILLON and Judge GRIFFIN concur.

                                            - 13 -