Bradshaw v. Maiden

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 52A23
• Status: Published

Opinion

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Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a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

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.

-2-