Michael L. Robinson
How Judge Robinson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On non-compete covenants he applies a strict overbreadth test: language barring 'direct or indirect' competition, undefined 'services,' or restrictions on any customer that 'might be considered competitive in nature' with no temporal limit will be struck down as unenforceable as a matter of law, and he has declined to save an overbroad clause by blue-penciling it.
“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.”
He treats a party's assertion of ownership over disputed property (such as forcibly reclaiming and reselling disputed stock) as potential 'self-help' that does not defeat a conversion claim at the pleading stage -- a party who believes it is contractually entitled to the property must still resolve the dispute through legal process (a breach-of-contract suit or specific performance) rather than simply taking and reselling it.
“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.”
He recognizes a fiduciary relationship between business partners as a matter of law independent of formal corporate roles, and will let a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim proceed on allegations of an ongoing partnership even where the defendant argues his only relevant status was as a minority shareholder (who, under unsettled North Carolina law, might not owe fiduciary duties at all).
“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 antitrust cases against dominant local providers, he reads Chapter 75 standing broadly for downstream consumers even where they never directly negotiated the challenged contract terms, and does not require a plaintiff to prove the defendant is an absolute 100%-market monopolist to state a state constitutional monopolization claim.
“Plaintiffs contend a relevant market in this action is the sale of acute inpatient hospital services to insurers in the Charlotte Area ... the Court concludes that whether Defendants perfected their appraisal rights is not a proper matter for determination.”
Procedural preferences
He consistently treats remedies pleaded as standalone 'causes of action' -- injunctive relief, an accounting, a constructive trust, rescission, punitive damages, turnover of property -- as improper claims that must be dismissed on their own, even while preserving the plaintiff's right to seek the same relief once tied to a surviving substantive claim. This is one of his most frequently repeated rulings across multiple unrelated cases.
“Injunctive relief 'is an ancillary remedy, not an independent cause of action.' ... It is well-settled that 'injunctive relief is not a standalone claim.'”
On corporate/AG standing questions he looks past a party's own prior interrogatory answer or litigation position if it was legally imprecise, distinguishing 'facts supporting a contention' from the underlying legal authority for it, and will independently determine the applicable common-law or statutory basis for a plaintiff's authority to sue rather than holding a party to an early, arguably erroneous characterization.
“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.”
When a party splits a single legal theory (like trade-secret misappropriation) across multiple categories of alleged confidential information, he will parse the claim category-by-category rather than ruling on the pleading as a whole -- some categories of information may state a claim while others, alleged too generically, do not.
“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
He is skeptical of 'aiding and abetting' claims layered onto ordinary breach-of-contract or trade-secret theories against non-parties to the underlying agreement, treating them as not independently cognizable causes of action under North Carolina law and dismissing them with prejudice even when the underlying substantive claim survives.
“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.”
He will hold a party to a strict pleading standard for tortious interference with contract and will not let 'competition' alone excuse otherwise-alleged unlawful conduct, but he also expects the moving party to identify precisely how the interference was justified rather than relying on the general principle that competitors may lawfully compete for each other's customers.
“[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 consolidated or coordinated multi-case litigation arising from the same underlying scheme, he will resolve overlapping motions together and cross-reference his own prior opinions in the related cases for factual background, signaling that parties in coordinated cases should expect consistent, cross-referenced rulings rather than case-by-case relitigation of the same facts.
“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.”
Put Judge Robinson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Robinson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Robinson's own signed orders and cites them.