James L. Gale
How Judge Gale rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Gale no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Gale
James L. Gale served on the North Carolina Business Court from 2011 through 2021 and was its chief judge from 2014 to 2018. Before joining the bench, he practiced business litigation at Smith Moore Leatherwood. He earned his undergraduate degree at Florida Presbyterian College and his law degree at the University of Georgia.
How Judge Gale decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Priest v. Coch, he dismissed an attorney's individual contract claim because the attorney had signed the agreement only on behalf of his law office and lacked personal standing to enforce it.
“The Complaint alleges that Priest signed the Agreement on behalf of the Law Office, not in his individual capacity, whereas Coch signed the Agreement both in his individual capacity, as well as on behalf of Information Patterns. This allegation is inadequate to confer standing on Priest individually.”
In Volvo Group North America v. Roberts Truck Center, he construed a settlement agreement using its language and the parties’ correspondence, finding that five disputed truck sales fell outside the dealer’s assigned area.
“Based on the language of the Settlement Agreement and the correspondence between the parties, the Court concludes that the parties understood and intended that sales to Schock Leasing would be considered sales outside of Roberts’ AOR”
In LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. North Carolina State Bar, he denied partial judgment on the pleadings because LegalZoom had not completed the administrative process for registering its prepaid legal services plans.
“the court concludes that LegalZoom has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.”
In North Carolina State Bar v. Lienguard, he held that Lienguard’s preparation of claims of lien for clients exceeded the limited assistance allowed to a scrivener and constituted unauthorized practice of law.
“Lienguard performs services beyond that of a scrivener, and in doing so it engages in the unauthorized practice of law”
Procedural preferences
In North Carolina State Bar v. Lienguard, Inc., Gale granted the State Bar judgment on the pleadings after deciding the legal question whether Lienguard's lien-preparation service exceeded the scrivener exception and constituted unauthorized practice of law.
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings . . . is proper when all the material allegations of fact are admitted on the pleadings and only questions of law remain.”
In SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Services LLC, he denied a renewed standing challenge presented to a second judge because it repeated arguments already decided without material new facts, law, or circumstances.
“the Court does not believe the holding in Transcontinental Gas should be so rigidly applied as to allow a party to present to a second judge essentially identical arguments without significant new facts or changes in law or circumstances, inviting a different ruling because the first judge was wrong.”
In Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc., he denied reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling after finding no new evidence, change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice.
“trial courts restrict reconsideration to grounds based on ‘(1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.’”
In Southeastern Paper Group, Inc. v. Sunburst Chemicals, Inc., he deferred a motion to compel arbitration and allowed limited discovery on whether the parties had formed a binding arbitration agreement.
“[P]ublic policy favoring arbitration does not come into play unless a court first finds that the parties entered into an enforceable agreement to arbitrate.”
Cautions
In SCR-Tech v. Evonik, Gale found a negligent failure to preserve potentially relevant evidence and allowed a permissive adverse inference, while declining the more severe sanctions the defendants requested.
“The Court need not find that the spoliation was intentional to impose this burden.”
In Blythe v. Bell, he found waiver after defendants produced privileged communications without reasonable advance precautions, while stressing that the unusual facts limited the ruling.
“Here, considering all factors, the court must conclude that any attorney-client privilege attendant to the produced documents has been waived.”
In Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, he denied a preliminary injunction after finding that Dr. Lynn had not shown likely success or irreparable loss; the alleged compensable loss could be remedied with money damages.
“If Dr. Lynn is able to prove that he has suffered a compensable loss, he may be compensated with money damages”
In Miriam Equities v. LB-UBS, he dismissed without prejudice an unjust enrichment claim that was not pleaded in the alternative and rested on a purchase governed by an express contract.
“here, Plaintiff did not plead unjust enrichment in the alternative, the parties agree that the purchase of the Property is governed by an express contract, and Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of its unjust enrichment claim independent of that contract.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Motion is DENIED as to Claim Four. A further ruling is DEFERRED, and the State Bar is directed to respond further to the Complaint.”
“For the reasons stated, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The following claims are DISMISSED: (a) all claims by Priest individually and (b) claims by the Law Office for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Motion is DENIED as to the Law Office's claims for breach of contract and fraud.”
“the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to fiduciary duty claims against Daniel Curran and Michael Nicholas, but is otherwise DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty and accounting for claims consistent with this Order is DENIED, but is GRANTED as to all other claims.”
“Defendants' Motion is DENIED as to the derivative claim brought by Island Beyond on behalf of Glenn Crossing against Prime Capital for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud; and (4) Defendants' Motion is GRANTED as to all other claims brought by Island Beyond.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, constructive trust, and attachment, but is DENIED as to all other claims.”
“the motion by Plaintiff The North Carolina State Bar (‘the State Bar’) is GRANTED, the motion by Defendants Lienguard, Inc. (‘Lienguard’) and Janis Lundquist (‘Lundquist’) is DENIED, and the State Bar is requested to submit a proposed injunction, after which the court will enter judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).”
“the motion by Defendants Lienguard, Inc. (‘Lienguard’) and Janis Lundquist (‘Lundquist’) is DENIED, and the State Bar is requested to submit a proposed injunction, after which the court will enter judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).”
“the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss Appeal and DENIES the Motion for Leave to File Amended Notice of Appeal.”
“Having found that Plaintiff has not met the requirements of Rule 3, the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to allow an amended notice of appeal.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion and dismisses Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff later asserting, if appropriate, an unjust enrichment claim independent of its contract claim.”
“Volvo's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;”
“Roberts' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED;”
“Plaintiffs' summary judgment motions are GRANTED as to liability, with damages as set forth below.”
“Partial summary judgment is entered against Manuel and in favor of Tim Henderson, Charles Henderson, and Aero with respect to their causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment”
“Having considered the briefs and relevant law, and having heard argument of counsel, the Court GRANTS the Motion.”
A historical record
Judge Gale no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.