Best Logistics Grp., Inc. v. Bravo

• Court: North Carolina Business Court
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-CVS-25484
• Status: Published
• Author: Adam M. Conrad

Opinion

Best Logistics Grp., Inc. v. Bravo, 2026 NCBC 46.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION GUILFORD COUNTY 25CV025484-400

BEST LOGISTICS GROUP, INC. and BEST SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER AND OPINION ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS CHRISTIAN NEIRA BRAVO and BARRY CARSON,

Defendants.

Rossabi Law PLLC, by Amiel J. Rossabi, for Plaintiffs Best Logistics Group, Inc. and Best Services Group, Inc.

Williams Mullen, by Michael C. Lord and Lewis H. Hallowell, for Defendants Christian Neira Bravo and Barry Carson.

Conrad, Judge.

1. Plaintiffs Best Logistics Group, Inc. and Best Services Group, Inc. (together,

“Best Logistics”) are related companies in the transportation industry. Defendants

Christian Neira Bravo and Barry Carson used to work for Best Logistics but resigned

in October 2025 to join a competitor. According to Best Logistics, Bravo and Carson

took trade secrets and confidential information with them and are using that

information to help their new employer compete unfairly. Along with a claim for

misappropriation of trade secrets, the amended complaint claims that Bravo and

Carson breached restrictive covenants in their employment agreements, tortiously

interfered with Best Logistics’ existing and prospective contracts, and engaged in

unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. The amended complaint also includes a purported standalone cause of action for injunctive relief. (See, e.g.,

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 6–8, 15, 22, 32, 35–41, 44–50, 58, 62, 63, 81, ECF No. 28.)

2. Bravo and Carson have moved to dismiss some, but not all, of the asserted

claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF

No. 64.) The motion has been fully briefed. In addition, during briefing, Best

Logistics voluntarily dismissed its claim for breach of contract against Carson, thus

mooting the motion as to that claim. (ECF No. 75.) In its discretion, the Court

concludes that a hearing would not aid its decision and therefore elects to rule on the

briefs. See BCR 7.4.

3. In deciding the motion, the Court applies familiar standards, taking the

allegations of the amended complaint as true and viewing the facts and permissible

inferences in the light most favorable to Best Logistics. See, e.g., Sykes v. Health

Network Sols., Inc., 372 N.C. 326, 332 (2019). But the Court need not accept as true

any “conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of fact.” Wray v. City of

Greensboro, 370 N.C. 41, 46 (2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

4. Nonsolicitation of Employees. Best Logistics claims that Bravo breached

his employment agreement’s restriction on solicitation of its employees. But the

allegations supporting that claim are threadbare. Although the amended complaint

alleges that Carson successfully solicited six employees to leave Best Logistics, it

contains no similar allegations concerning Bravo. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) Nothing in

the pleading suggests that Carson’s acts are attributable to Bravo. And the only

paragraph that could be construed to allege that Bravo improperly solicited employees is conclusory and does not even refer to him by name, instead grouping

him with Carson as “Defendants.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 32.) This is far from sufficient to

state a claim for relief. See, e.g., Barings LLC v. Fowler, 2025 NCBC LEXIS 18, at *9

(N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2025) (dismissing conclusory allegations of breach of

nonsolicitation clause). Because Best Logistics has already amended its complaint,

the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice. See First Fed. Bank v. Aldridge, 230

N.C. App. 187, 191 (2013) (“The decision to dismiss an action with or without

prejudice is in the discretion of the trial court . . . .”).

5. Nonsolicitation of Customers. Best Logistics also claims that Bravo

breached his employment agreement’s restriction on solicitation of its customers.

Bravo moves to dismiss this claim on the ground that the customer nonsolicitation

clause is facially overbroad and therefore unenforceable. Having carefully considered

the argument, the Court concludes that the enforceability of Bravo’s customer

nonsolicitation clause is an issue better suited to summary judgment. See, e.g., Mkt.

Am., Inc. v. Lee, 257 N.C. App. 98, 110 (2017) (“[A] ruling on the enforceability of such

an agreement cannot be made at the pleadings stage in cases where evidence is

needed to show the reasonableness of the restrictions contained therein.”); InVue Sec.

Prods., Inc. v. Stein, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 115, at *16 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2017)

(denying motion to dismiss when enforceability could not be determined from

pleadings alone); Sandhills Home Care, L.L.C. v. Companion Home Care – Unimed,

Inc., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 61, at *27–28 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2016) (same). The

Court therefore denies the motion to dismiss this claim. 6. Tortious Interference Claims. A claim for tortious interference with

contract arises when a person induces a third party “not to perform” under an existing

contract with the plaintiff. United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 661 (1998)

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Similarly, a claim for tortious interference

with prospective economic advantage arises when a person induces a third party “not

to enter a contract with” the plaintiff when the contract would have resulted “but for

the interference.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 654 (2001) (citation and quotation

marks omitted). Here, Best Logistics has not alleged that any customer failed to

perform an existing contract. Nor has it identified any contract that would have

ensued absent interference by Bravo or Carson. The allegations are vague,

conclusory, and inadequate to state a claim. See, e.g., MarketPlace 4 Ins., LLC v.

Vaughn, 2023 NCBC LEXIS 31, at *37 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2023) (dismissing

tortious-interference claim based on threadbare allegations); Gateway Mgmt. Servs.

v. Carrbridge Berkshire Grp., Inc., 2018 NCBC LEXIS 45, at *26 (N.C. Super. Ct. May

9, 2018) (same); Sec. Camera Warehouse, Inc. v. Bowman, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 39, at

*22 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 1, 2017) (same). These claims are dismissed with prejudice.

7. Section 75-1.1. The section 75-1.1 claim is a catchall claim premised on

Best Logistics’ other asserted claims. Bravo and Carson concede that the claim may

proceed to the extent that it is based on allegations of trade-secret misappropriation,

but they contend that the claim may not proceed on other grounds. The claims for

breach of Carson’s employment agreement, breach of the employee nonsolicitation

clause in Bravo’s employment agreement, and tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts cannot support the section 75-1.1 claim because they have been

dismissed, either voluntarily by Best Logistics or by the Court. See Whalen v. Tuttle,

2024 NCBC LEXIS 146, at *14–15 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2024) (dismissing

“catchall” section 75-1.1 claim predicated on other claims that had been dismissed).

In addition, Best Logistics’ allegation that Bravo and Carson “made false

representations of material fact” to its customers is wholly conclusory. (Am. Compl.

¶ 63.) Accordingly, the only viable predicates for this claim are the allegations related

to misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of the customer nonsolicitation clause

in Bravo’s employment agreement. The Court therefore dismisses the section 75-1.1

claim except to the extent that it is based on these allegations.

8. Injunctive Relief. “[I]njunctions are remedies, not independent causes of

action.” Brewster v. Powell Bail Bonding, Inc., 2018 NCBC LEXIS 76, at *18 (N.C.

Super. Ct. July 26, 2018). The Court therefore dismisses Best Logistics’ purported

standalone cause of action for injunctive relief, without prejudice to its right to pursue

that relief as a remedy at the appropriate time.

* * *

9. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the

motion to dismiss as stated above. SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

/s/ Adam M. Conrad Adam M. Conrad Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases