Michael L. Robinson
How Judge Robinson rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Robinson no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Robinson
Michael L. Robinson served on the North Carolina Business Court from 2016 until his retirement from that court in August 2026. He was its chief judge from January 2025. Before joining the bench, he practiced business litigation in Winston-Salem for about 35 years.
How Judge Robinson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Accelerando, Inc. v. Relentless Solutions, Inc., Robinson found the noncompete clause overbroad because it did not reasonably identify the services barred. He declined to apply the blue pencil doctrine and dismissed the contract claim to the extent it relied on that clause.
“This language, coupled with the use of the phrase 'directly or indirectly,' is overbroad and does not reasonably put Yoder on notice of what services he is prohibited from providing ... The Court, in its discretion, will not apply the blue pencil doctrine to the non-competition provision.”
In Loyd v. Griffin, he found that the defendants' alleged sale of Loyd's stock before pursuing contractual relief plausibly stated a conversion claim, regardless of whether the shareholder agreement was valid.
“Defendants allegedly took neither action before purporting to sell Loyd's stock. Therefore, regardless of whether the Shareholder Agreement was valid, the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads facts that demonstrate Defendants asserted an ownership interest they did not have in Loyd's stock.”
In Loyd v. Griffin, Robinson allowed a fiduciary duty claim to survive dismissal because the complaint adequately alleged an ongoing business partnership between the two individuals.
“The allegations demonstrating a partnership between Griffin and Loyd at all relevant times are sufficient to establish that a fiduciary duty existed between them for the purposes of the claim surviving a 12(b)(6) motion.”
In DiCesare, Robinson held that allegations of a hospital system's market power were sufficient at the pleading stage to state a monopolization claim, despite a claimed market share below total control.
“The Court concludes that, taking the allegations of the FAC as true and construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the allegations are sufficient to state that the Hospital possesses monopoly power for the same reasons the allegations are sufficient to state that the Hospital has market power.”
Procedural preferences
In Accelerando, Inc. v. Relentless Solutions, Inc., Robinson dismissed a standalone claim for permanent injunctive relief without prejudice because an injunction is a remedy, while leaving open a request for that remedy if later warranted.
“Injunctive relief 'is an ancillary remedy, not an independent cause of action.' ... It is well-settled that 'injunctive relief is not a standalone claim.'”
In State of North Carolina v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Robinson did not treat the State’s earlier interrogatory answer identifying a statute as a limit on the Attorney General’s authority. The interrogatory had asked for supporting facts, and the court examined the legal basis for the suit separately.
“The Court does not consider the answer originally given by Plaintiff in its interrogatory response as limiting the Attorney General's authority to bring this lawsuit to his statutory authority.”
In Power Home Solar v. Sigora Solar, he allowed trade-secret claims based on identified customer information to proceed but dismissed claims based on more general descriptions of proprietary practices and pricing models.
“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent the claims are based on Power Home's 'customer names, customer contact information and customer buying preferences and history' ... The Court GRANTS in part the Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice the trade secret misappropriation claims to the extent the claims are based on 'proprietary practices, methods, techniques, and pricing models.'”
Cautions
In Power Home Solar v. Sigora Solar, he dismissed with prejudice a claim for aiding and abetting breach of contract while allowing some of the separate trade-secret claims to proceed.
“The Court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 2 of the Complaint, Power Home's aiding and abetting breach of contract claim, and DISMISSES the claim with prejudice.”
In Accelerando, Inc. v. Relentless Solutions, Inc., Robinson rejected the argument that business competition alone justified the alleged interference with customer contracts. The complaint alleged that the defendants used unlawful means to induce terminations.
“[C]ompetition in business only constitutes justifiable interference so long as it is carried on in furtherance of one's own interests and by means that are lawful.”
In Merrell v. Smith, he addressed overlapping motions from related suits and restated factual background from an earlier opinion involving the same conduct.
“Given the overlap in facts between the Motions and the motions before the Court in Merrell v. Smith, due to much of the same conduct being at issue in the Motions now before the Court, several facts from Merrell v. Smith are re-stated herein.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS the Rule 12(b)(1) Motion, and DENIES the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion as untimely.”
“DENIES the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion as untimely.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and DENIES Defendants' motion to transfer venue.”
“DENIES Defendants' motion to transfer venue.”
“the Court DENIES the Motions.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions for summary judgment.”
“the Court DENIES the Motions.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motions.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to Dismiss.”
“the Court DENIES the Motion to the extent that it is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).”
“The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 1 of the Complaint, Power Home's breach of contract claim. The Motion is DENIED to the extent it requests dismissal of the claim for breach of the Nondisclosure Provision. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests dismissal of the breach of contract claim for any alleged breach of the Noncompete Provision and the Non-Solicitation Provision and the claim to that extent is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 2 of the Complaint, Power Home's aiding and abetting breach of contract claim, and DISMISSES the claim with prejudice.”
“the Court DENIES the Motion to the extent the claims are based on Power Home's 'customer names, customer contact information and customer buying preferences and history' ... The Court GRANTS in part the Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice the trade secret misappropriation claims to the extent the claims are based on 'proprietary practices, methods, techniques, and pricing models' and 'information concerning [Power Home's] relationship with its suppliers and vendors.'”
“The Court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 4 of the Complaint, Power Home's claim for aiding and abetting misappropriation of trade secrets, and DISMISSES the claim with prejudice.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 11 of the Complaint, Power Home's claim for unjust enrichment.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Counts 6 and 7 of the Complaint, Power Home's claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 75-1.1 and common law unfair competition.”
“The Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice the claim for tortious interference with the Noncompete Provision and the Non-Solicitation Provision. The Court DENIES the Motion as to Power Home's claim for tortious interference with the Nondisclosure Provision.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Count 8 of the Complaint, Power Home's claim for civil conspiracy.”
“The Court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it requests dismissal of Counts 10, 12, and 13 of the Complaint, Power Home's claims for relief titled as (1) Count X for 'Turnover of Property to [Power Home] and for an Accounting against Defendants,' (2) Count XII 'Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction' and (3) Count XIII 'Punitive Damages Against Defendants,' and DISMISSES these claims without prejudice to Power Home's right to seek these remedies as it may be entitled.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion.”
“the Motion is DENIED as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
“the Motion is DENIED as to the constructive fraud claim.”
“the Motion is DENIED as to the conversion claim.”
“the Motion is DENIED as to the unjust enrichment claim.”
“the Motion is GRANTED as to the constructive trust and accounting claim.”
“the Motion is GRANTED as to the rescission claim.”
“the Motion is GRANTED as to the punitive damages claim.”
A historical record
Judge Robinson 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.