You are on page 1of 421

NO.

_______ TENTH DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

*******************************

IN THE MATTER OF: )


OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF )
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH )
CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a )
THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, )
LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, ) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Plaintiffs, ) File No.05 CVS 3411
v. )
)
KENNETH C. JOHNSON. )
Defendant, )
______________________________)

AND

KENNETH C. JOHNSON. )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF )
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH ) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a ) File No.08 CVS 3715
THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, )
LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, )
SANDRA LYNN WOOD, AND ALAN )
FINLAYSON, )
Defendants, )
______________________________)

AND
-ii-

KENNETH C. JOHNSON, )
Plaintiff, )
v. )
)
OAK HEALTH CARE INVESTORS OF )
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., A NORTH )
CAROLINA CORPORATION d/b/a )
THE LAURELS OF FOREST GLENN, )
LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY, )
YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, ) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
BARBARA B. WEYHER, ESQ.,IN HER) File No.09 CVS 6918
PARTNERSHIP, PROFESSIONAL AND )
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, DAN J. )
MCLAMB, IN HIS PARTNERSHIP, )
PROFESSIONAL, AND INDIVIDUAL )
CAPACITIES, SEAN T. PARTRICK, )
ESQ, IN HIS, PARTNERSHIP, )
PROFESSIONAL, AND INDIVIDUAL, )
CAPACITIES,CHRISTOPHER M.WEST,)
IN HIS PARTNERSHIP,PROFESIONAL)
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, )
Defendants, )
______________________________)

******************************

RECORD ON APPEAL

******************************

INDEX

Statement of Organization of Trial Court. . . . 1


Statement of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Plaintiff’s Complaint File No. 08 CVS 3715
[filed 5 March 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Defendants’ Letter of Appearance (Notice of
Appearance) [served 18 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . 28
[Defendant Finlayson] Motion For Extension of
Time To Answer Complaint [filed 28 MARCH
2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
-iii-

Order Extending Time [for Defendant Finlayson]


To Answer Complaint [filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . 32

Motion For Extension Time To Answer Complaint


[Defendants Oak Health Care and Sandra Wood’s]
[filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Order Extending Time to Answer Complaint
[Defendants Oak Health Care and Sandra Wood]
[filed 28 MARCH 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 37
[Plaintiff’s] Motion for Entry of Default [as
to Defendant Laurel Health Care Company]
[filed 11 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Defendant Laurel Health Care Company’s Motion
To Dismiss And Original Answer To Plaintiff’s
Complaint [filed 14 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . 42
[Defendant Laurel Health Care Company’s (FIRST)
Motion To Strike Any Patient Information From
Plaintiff’s Complaint] [filed 14 APRIL 2008]. 44
Defendants [Laurel Health Care Company]
Response To Motion For Entry of Default
Judgment [filed 21 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . 62
[Plaintiff’s] Motion to Strike Defendant Laurel
Health Care Company’s Motion To Dismiss And
Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
[filed 22 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Motion To
Strike Defendant Laurel Health Care Company’s
Motion To Dismiss And Original Answer
[filed 29 APRIL 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Defendant Laurel Health Care Company’s Motion
To Dismiss And Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint [filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . 75
[Defendant Laurel Health Care Company] (SECOND)
Motion To Strike [Any Patient Information
From Plaintiff’s Complaint]
[filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Defendants Oak Health Care Investors, Wood and
Finlayson’s Motion To Dismiss And Original
Answer To Plaintiff’s Complaint
[filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
[Defendants Oak Health Care Investors, Wood and
Finlayson] Motion To Strike [Any Patient
Information From Plaintiff’s Complaint
[filed 6 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
-iv-

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Laurel


Health Care Company’s Motion To Dismiss
[Complaint] [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . 123

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Laurel


Health Care Company’s Motion To Strike [Any
Patient Information From Plaintiff’s
Complaint] [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . . . . . . . 126
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants Oak Health
Care, Wood and Finlayson’s Motion To Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint [filed 30 MAY 2008]. . 129
[Plaintiff’s] Amended Complaint File No. 08 CVS
3715 [filed 23 JUNE 2008]. . . . . . . . . . 140
Defendants Amended Motion To Dismiss For
Insufficient Service of Process And Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
[filed 11 AUGUST 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Order on Plaintiff’s Motions For Entry Of
Default, To Strike Defendants’ Answer, Strike
Defendants’ Amended Motion To Dismiss For
Insufficient Service Of Process and Lack Of
Personal Jurisdiction AND Defendants’ Motion
To Dismiss For Insufficient Service of
Process and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
[filed 29 JULY 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Defendants Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Summons
And Motion For Costs [filed 11 AUGUST 2008]. 193
[Plaintiff’s] Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment
[striking summonses] [filed 12 AUGUST 2008]. . 235
[Plaintiff’s] Affidavit In Support of Motion To
Alter Or Amend Judgment [dismissal]
[filed 8 SEPTEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 244
[Plaintiff’s] Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment
[striking summonses][filed 8 SEPTEMBER 2008]. 265
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Rule 59 Motion
[filed 9 SEPTEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 267
Order On Defendants’ Motion To Strike Summonses
And Motion For Costs[filed 9 SEPTEMBER 2008]. 270
[Plaintiff’s] Rule 60 Motion For Relief From
Judgment Or Order [dismissal]
[filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 273
[Plaintiff’s] Amended Motion To Alter Or Amend
Judgment [of dismissal] filed 5 DEC 2008]. . 277
Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike And Plaintiff’s
Opposition To Defendants Wood And Finlayson’s
Motion To Dismiss And In The Alternative
Motion For Summary Judgment
-v-

[filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 280

[Plaintiff’s] Motion For Ruling On Objection To


Order On Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss For
Insufficient Service of Process And Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction, And Order On
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Summonses And
Motion For Costs [filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . 277
[Plaintiff’s] Brief In Support of Motion For
Ruling On Objection To Order On Plaintiff’s
Motion To Strike Defendant’s Amended Motion
to Dismiss For Insufficient Service of
Process And Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,
And Order On Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Summonses And Motion For Costs
[filed 5 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 306
Order [Denying Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions]
[Judge Baddour] [dismissing Oak Health and
Laurel Health care [filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . 339
Order [Denying Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions]
[Judge Baddour] [dismissing Wood and
Finlayson [filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . 341
[Plaintiff’s] Motion To Alter Or Amend
Judgments (Judge Alan Baddour) Rule 59
[filed 9 DECEMBER 2008]. . . . . . . . . . . 343
[Plaintiff’s] Rule 63 Motion To Alter Or Amend
Judgments Pursuant To Rule 59
[filed 15 JULY 2009]. . . . . . . . . . . 347
Order On Plaintiff’s Rule 63, Rule 59 And Rule
60 Motions On Judge Spencer’s July 25, 2008
And August 29, 2008 Orders
[filed 10 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . 350
Order[s] On Extra-Judicial Communication
[Files 05CVS3411, 08CVS3715; and 09CVS6918
[Judge Stephens][filed 14 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . 358
Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend Judgment Pursuant
To Rule 59 And Rule 52(b)
[filed 18 SEPTEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . 364
Motion For Access N.C.G.S. 1-72.1
[filed 21 SEPTMEBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . 376
Motion To Show Cause [Extra-Judicial
Communication][filed 8 OCTOBER 2009]. . . . . 379
[Plaintiff’s] Brief In Support Of Plaintiff’s
Motion To Amend Judgment Pursuant To Rule 59
And Rule 52(b)[filed 12 NOVEMBER 2009]. . . . 383
-vi-

Order [Extra-Judicial Communication, Motion For


Access, Rule 59, Rule 60, Rule 63]
[filed 9 NOVEMBER 2009][served 16 NOV 2009]. 397
Notice of Appeal [with Certificate of Service]
[filed 18 NOVEMBER 2009]. . . . . . . . . . . 401
Narration Option of the Issues . . . . . . . . 404
Motion for Extension Of Time [For Service Of
The Proposed Record On Appeal]
[Judge Jolly][served 23 DECEMBER 2009]. . . . 405
Order On Motion for Extension Of Time [For
Service Of The Proposed Record On Appeal]
[Judge Jolly][granted 7 JANUARY 2010]. . . . 407
Order Granting Appellant Leave to File Appeal
In Forma Pauperis [Judge Hobgood]
[filed 26 January 2010]. . . . . . . . . . . 409
Stipulation Settling Record On Appeal . . . . . 412
Proposed Issues On Appeal . . . . . . . . . . 414
Identification of Counsel For The Appeal. . . . 415
Certificate of Service For Proposed Record . . 416
-1-

STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION OF THE TRIAL COURT

From the July 14, 2008 Civil Session of Superior Court of


Wake County, the Honorable James C. Spencer, Judge presiding.
From the July 29, 2008 and August 29, 2008 judgments dismissing
plaintiff’s claim in case 08 CVS 3715.

From the August 31, 2009 Civil Session of Superior Court of


Wake County, the Honorable Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident
Superior Court Judge presiding.

From the September 10, 2009 order of Judge Donald W.


Stephens entitled “Order on Plaintiff’s Rule 63, Rule 59 and
Rule 60 Motions of Judge Spencer’s July 25, 2008 and August 29,
2008 Orders” in 08 CVS 3715. From the November 9, 2009 judgment
denying plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the September 10,
2009 judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled “Order on
Plaintiff’s Rule 63, Rule 59 and Rule 60 Motions of Judge
Spencer’s July 25, 2008 and August 29, 2008 Orders” in 08 CVS
3715.

From the September 14, 2009 order of Judge Donald W.


Stephens entitled “Order On Extra-Judicial Communication” in
cases 05 CVS 3411; 08 CVS 003715; and 09 CVS 6918. From the
November 9, 2009 judgment denying plaintiff’s motion to alter or
amend the September 14, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W.
Stephens entitled “Order On Extra-Judicial Communication” in
case 05 CVS 3411.

From the September 14, 2009 order of Judge Donald W.


Stephens entitled “Order On Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause” in
case 05 CVS 3411. From the November 9, 2009 judgment denying
defendant’s motion to alter or amend the September 14, 2009
judgment of Judge Donald W. Stephens entitled “Order On
Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause” in case 05 CVS 3411.

From the November 9, 2009 judgment of Judge Donald W.


Stephens denying movant’s motion entitled “Motion for Access
N.C.G.S. 1-72.1.”

The record on appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals on

______________, 2010 and was docketed on ___________, 2010.


-2-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The 05 CVS 3411 case was commenced by the filing of a


complaint and the issuance of summons on March 14, 2005 by
Plaintiffs Oak Health Care Investors of North Carolina, INC., a
North Carolina Corporation d/b/a The Laurels of Forest Glenn;
and Laurel Health Care Company. The parties acknowledge that
the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

The 08 CVS 003715 case was commenced by the filing of a


complaint and issuance of summons on March 6, 2008 by pro se
Plaintiff Kenneth C. Johnson. Additional summons was issued on
July 16, 2008. The parties dispute that the trial court had
personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the corporate
defendants.

The 09 CVS 6918 case was commenced by the filing of a


complaint and issuance of summons on April 6, 2009 by Plaintiff
Kenneth C. Johnson. The parties acknowledge that the trial court
had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-
-16-
-17-
-18-
-19-
-20-
-21-
-22-
-23-
-24-
-25-
-26-
-27-
-28-
-29-
-30-
-31-
-32-
-33-
-34-
-35-
-36-
-37-
-38-
-39-
-40-
-41-
-42-
-43-
-44-
-45-
-46-
-47-
-48-
-49-
-50-
-51-
-52-
-53-
-54-
-55-
-56-
-57-
-58-
-59-
-60-
-61-
-62-
-63-
-64-
-65-
-66-
-67-
-68-
-69-
-70-
-71-
-72-
-73-
-74-
-75-
-76-
-77-
-78-
-79-
-80-
-81-
-82-
-83-
-84-
-85-
-86-
-87-
-88-
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
-99-
-100-
-101-
-102-
-103-
-104-
-105-
-106-
-107-
-108-
-109-
-110-
-111-
-112-
-113-
-114-
-115-
-116-
-117-
-118-
-119-
-120-
-121-
-122-
-123-
-124-
-125-
-126-
-127-
-128-
-129-
-130-
-131-
-132-
-133-
-134-
-135-
-136-
-137-
-138-
-139-
-140-
-141-
-142-
-143-
-144-
-145-
-146-
-147-
-148-
-149-
-150-
-151-
-152-
-153-
-154-
-155-
-156-
-157-
-158-
-159-
-160-
-161-
-162-
-163-
-164-
-165-
-166-
-167-
-168-
-169-
-170-
-171-
-172-
-173-
-174-
-175-
-176-
-177-
-178-
-179-
-180-
-181-
-182-
-183-
-184-
-185-
-186-
-187-
-188-
-189-
-190-
-191-
-192-
-193-
-194-
-195-
-196-
-197-
-198-
-199-
-200-
-201-
-202-
-203-
-204-
-205-
-206-
-207-
-208-
-209-
-210-
-211-
-212-
-213-
-214-
-215-
-216-
-217-
-218-
-219-
-220-
-221-
-222-
-223-
-224-
-225-
-226-
-227-
-228-
-229-
-230-
-231-
-232-
-233-
-234-
-235-
-236-
-237-
-238-
-239-
-240-
-241-
-242-
-243-
-244-
-245-
-246-
-247-
-248-
-249-
-250-
-251-
-252-
-253-
-254-
-255-
-256-
-257-
-258-
-259-
-260-
-261-
-262-
-263-
-264-
-265-
-266-
-267-
-268-
-269-
-270-
-271-
-272-
-273-
-274-
-275-
-276-
-277-
-278-
-279-
-280-
-281-
-282-
-283-
-284-
-285-
-286-
-287-
-288-
-289-
-290-
-291-
-292-
-293-
-294-
-295-
-296-
-297-
-298-
-299-
-300-
-301-
-302-
-303-
-304-
-305-
-306-
-307-
-308-
-309-
-310-
-311-
-312-
-313-
-314-
-315-
-316-
-317-
-318-
-319-
-320-
-321-
-322-
-323-
-324-
-325-
-326-
-327-
-328-
-329-
-330-
-331-
-332-
-333-
-334-
-335-
-336-
-337-
-338-
-339-
-340-
-341-
-342-
-343-
-344-
-345-
-346-
-347-
-348-
-349-
-350-
-351-
-352-
-353-
-354-
-355-
-356-
-357-
-358-
-359-
-360-
-361-
-362-
-363-
-364-
-365-
-366-
-367-
-368-
-369-
-370-
-371-
-372-
-373-
-374-
-375-
-376-
-377-
-378-
-379-
-380-
-381-
-382-
-383-
-384-
-385-
-386-
-387-
-388-
-389-
-390-
-391-
-392-
-393-
-394-
-395-
-396-
-397-
-398-
-399-
-400-
-401-
-402-
-403-

NARRATION OPTION OF THE ISSUES

The transcript will not be forwarded with this appeal. The


original denial of the appellant’s motion to appeal in forma
pauperis made the inclusion of the transcript cost-prohibitive
for the indigent appellant prior to the deadline for service of
the proposed record on appeal. After the subsequent order
granting the appellant in forma pauperis status, the transcript
still remains non-essential for the understanding of this appeal
and the voluminous pleadings and multiple hearings in this
appeal would necessitate several transcripts and may confuse
more than enlighten. Fortunately, notwithstanding the multiple
issues raised in this appeal, the dispositive issues concern
stare decisis rulings. The appellant filed a complaint to
address issues concerning the public policy exception to the “at
will” doctrine. The corporate defendants were not served by the
letter of Rule 4, however the corporate defendants made multiple
general appearances prior to pleading insufficiency of service,
including a motion to strike elements of the complaint. The
appellant objected within multiple pleadings to the dismissal,
as he believes the parties were estopped from pleading the
defense of insufficiency of service of process after making
multiple general appearances. Also, the ruling on attorney fees
is not supported by competent evidence and seeks to deny the
appellant the right to cure defective service of process. The
appellant requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and
rulings on objections to these issues and did not receive the
requested rulings. Additionally, after the trial court found
the appellant in civil contempt for publishing information on
the internet about the pending cases, the appellant moved for a
hearing to bring forth evidence that the information is public
record and therefore protected speech. The request for a
hearing was denied. The requested finding of fact and
conclusions of law to support the ordered “gag” order was also
denied. These are the dispositive issues that necessitate this
appeal.
-404-
-405-
-406-
-407-
-408-
-409-
-410-
-411-

STIPULATION SETTLING RECORD ON APPEAL

The Appellant and counsel for the Appellee stipulate as follows:

1. The proposed record on appeal was timely served on 22


January 2010. The certificate showing service of the proposed
record may be omitted from the settled record.

2. Appellee’s objections were served on ___________


Appellee objected to _____________ and ___________________. The
parties came to an agreement as to which documents would be
included in the printed record. Because no party moved for
judicial settlement, the record on appeal was deemed settled on
_______________.

3. All captions, signatures, headings of papers,


certificates of service and documents filed with the trial court
that are not necessary for an understanding of the appeal may be
omitted from the record, except as required by Rule 9 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4. The parties stipulate that the following documents


appeared as attachments to multiple filings in the trial court,
but will be included only once in the Record on Appeal to avoid
unnecessary duplication. Where a duplicative copy would have
appeared, a slip sheet referring to the pages where the first
copy appears in the printed record is substituted instead.

a. ____________________. Copy included in the


record at ___________.

b. ____________________. Copy included in the


record at ___________.

5. The parties stipulate that the following documents


constitute the agreed-upon record on appeal to be filed with the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals:

a. This printed record on appeal, consisting of


pages 1 to 422;
-412-

b. The Rule 11(c) “Supplemental Record on Appeal”


identified in stipulation 2, consisting of pages_________
(three copies of which are filed along with this printed record
on appeal).

c. The Motion for Extension of Time For Service of the


Proposed Record [R pp 405-406] was timely served upon the Court
on 23 December 2009 and the Order on Motion For Extension of
Time [R pp 407-408] was granted on 7 January 2010.

This _______ day of _________, 2010.

For the Appellant: ________________________________


Name of pro se Appellant

For the Appellee: _______________________________


Name of Counsel
-413-

PROPOSED ISSUES ON APPEAL

Pursuant to Rule 10, [and 7(a)(1)], Appellant intends to


present the following proposed issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial court err in dismissing the corporate


defendants for insufficiency of service of process and lack of
personal jurisdiction without jurisdiction to grant the order?

2. Did the trial court err in dismissing the corporate


defendants [R pp 190] for insufficiency of service of process
after the defendants failed to plead such defenses in a timely
responsive pleading?

3. Did the trial court err in striking the summons


without sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law
[R pp 190] to support the order?

4. Did the trial court err in awarding attorneys fees


without sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to
support the order?

5. Did the trial court err in awarding attorneys fees


without competent evidence to support such fees?

6. Did the trial court err in considering ex parte


prejudicial “evidence” outside the pleadings during deliberation
of the judgment?

7. Did the trial court err in refusing to provide


findings of fact and conclusions of law to support an order on
extra-judicial communication?
-414-

IDENTIFICATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPEAL


For the Appellant: Kenneth C. Johnson
Pro Se

For the Appellee: Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP.


Christopher M. West
NCBN 29504
(919) 719-6053
email: cwest@ymlaw.com

Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP.


Sean T. Partrick
NCBN 25176
(919) 719-6051
email: spartrick@ymwlaw.com

Young, Moore & Henderson, PA


Walter E. Brock, Jr.
NCBN ________
(919) 782-6753
email: web@youngmoorelaw.com
-415-