Court Opinion

ID: 9585964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:05:37.267868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:17.655152
License: Public Domain

Justice FRYE
dissenting.
In this case, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs claims on the pleadings for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the complaints give defendants sufficient notice of the nature and basis of plaintiffs claims to enable them to answer and to prepare for trial. I agree with that decision.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be allowed “unless it affirmatively appears that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be presented in support of the claim.” Presnell v. Pell, 298 N.C. 715, 719, 260 S.E. 2d 611, 613 (1979).
For the reasons stated in Justice Exum’s dissenting and concurring opinion as to Part I, I believe that the complaints, taken in their entirety, state a claim for relief for libel per se. I also agree with that portion of Justice Meyer’s dissenting and concurring opinion which concludes that the complaints state a valid claim for false light invasion of privacy and that such a cause of action should obtain in North Carolina. Accordingly, I would vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.