A. Graham Shirley II
How Judge Shirley rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shirley
A. Graham Shirley II is a Special Superior Court Judge assigned to the North Carolina Business Court. He previously served as a resident superior court judge in Wake County and practiced commercial and construction litigation. He earned his undergraduate degree at Virginia Military Institute and his law degree at William & Mary Law School.
Judge Shirley's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Shirley's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Shirley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Investments, LLC, Shirley treated the construction lending as an ordinary arm's-length relationship that did not create fiduciary duties without facts showing the lender's domination or control.
“Ordinary borrower-lender transactions . . . are considered arm's length and do not typically give rise to fiduciary duties.”
In Belmont Korners, Shirley found the fraud allegations insufficient because the complaint did not identify the exact allegedly false statement or when it was made.
“Court finds that this fails to meet the particularity requirements by not identifying the exact statement or statements that are alleged to be false and when the statement(s) was made.”
In Cadieu Tree Experts, Inc. v. Wiedner, he dismissed emotional distress counterclaims because they asserted severe distress without alleging what that distress entailed.
“The Counterclaims only allege that ‘the Cadieu Family’s conduct did, in fact, cause severe emotional distress,’ but do not provide specific details as to what that severe emotional distress entails.”
Procedural preferences
In Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Investments, LLC, he dismissed separate claims for constructive trust, punitive damages, and an accounting because they sought remedies rather than independent causes of action.
“Punitive damages likewise are ‘a remedy rather than a standalone cause of action.’”
In Cadieu Tree Experts, Inc. v. Wiedner, Shirley denied a motion to strike four affirmative defenses after finding that they gave fair notice of their basis; he noted that Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored.
“Rule 12(f) motions are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.”
In Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Investments, LLC, Shirley assessed the claims of each affiliated plaintiff separately. He dismissed claims where the complaint did not connect a particular plaintiff's injury to a particular defendant's conduct, and required a derivative pleading for claims belonging to Belmont Development.
“The Court therefore analyzes the substantive claims based on the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs for whom the Complaint pleads a plausible right to relief.”
Cautions
In Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Investments, LLC, he dismissed a conspiracy claim against a company and its members or agents after finding no alleged conduct outside an agency relationship or independent personal stake.
“The conspiracy claim also fails because the pleaded relationship among Lynk, its members or agents, and the purported managers of Belmont Development implicates the intracorporate immunity doctrine, which holds that ‘there can be no conspiracy between a corporation and its agents.’”
In Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Investments, LLC, he dismissed an unfair trade practices claim because the alleged misconduct concerned governance of a single development venture rather than marketplace conduct.
“Those allegations describe an internal ownership and governance dispute within a single business enterprise, not marketplace conduct between separate market participants.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Third-Party Defendants’ Motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion as follows:”
“the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion.”
“WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion”
“the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion as set forth below.”
“The Court DENIES VF’s First Motion to Stay as moot”
“The Court DENIES VF’s First Motion to Stay as moot and DENIES the Second Motion to Stay Arbitration for the reasons set forth herein.”
“the Court GRANTS the Motion and judgment is hereby”
Draft for Judge Shirley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shirley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shirley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace