The advent of e-filing in North Carolina’s state courts has delivered a long-sought respite to sending couriers and local counsel to clerk’s offices from Manteo to Murphy. While the journey was a bumpy one from the four-county trial in February 2023 to 100-county reach in October 2025, the eCourts platform has afforded attorneys a baseline, statewide system which begins to bring the state court system into step with the conveniences of federal court filing. Yet, e-filing in North Carolina is not quite uniform among the Superior Courts because the NC Business Court – the leader of the court pack in e-filing – is still platformed on its eFlex e-filing system.

In Moore v. Brooks, 2026 NCBC 53, the Business Court reviewed an eccentricity of its filing rules that remains even with all the host counties of its cases being e-file forums: the BCR 3.11 requirement that specified documents, including all “[w]ritten motions,” must also be filed in the county of venue within five days after service.

The setting was plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the Court’s ruling dismissing a group of defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. They contended the Court’s ruling should be set aside as “void” under N.C. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) because at the point of the decision the motion to dismiss had only been filed in the Business Court’s eFlex system but not in Durham County through Odyssey. Judge Houston did not endorse plaintiffs’ assertion that “the motion was effectively non-existent and could not be ruled on.” Moore, ¶¶ 13, 21.

The Court agreed that, under BCR 7.1(c), it had the “discretion to disregard or strike a filing that does not comply with” its rules. And that its inherent authority also extended to striking improper filings. Moore, ¶ 20 (citing Overton Row Holdings, LLC v. CW Constr. & Dev., LLC, 2026 WL 1578931, *3 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026)). But, “[e]ven when a motion is not properly filed,” the Court found, “in its discretion, a court may still consider the motion as long as the parties ‘were put on notice, or had reason to know,’ of the motion.” Id. ¶ 24 (quoting Towne v. Cope, 32 N.C. App. 660, 665 (1977)).

The Court noted that plaintiffs knew of the motion and its jurisdictional basis, had the opportunity to brief their positions, as well as to be heard at oral argument. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10:

“Though the lack of a filing on the Odyssey system was readily determinable by a review of that docket, Plaintiffs did not object to notice or service of the motion in any of their arguments, written or oral, before the Court ruled on the motion.”

Instead, Judge Houston noted that Plaintiffs objected to the non-Odyssey filing 8 months after it was originally filed on the Business Court’s system, “more than two months after the Court” decided the motion, “and more than a month after Plaintiffs noticed their appeal from” the order dismissing some of the defendants. Id. ¶ 13. The Court noted it previously had denied a similarly framed objection to non-filing in a county of venue, suggesting that “courts should weigh the impact of the rule violations on the non-violating party and the importance of upholding the integrity of the rules against the broader public policy favoring the resolution of disputes on their merits.” Id. ¶ 24 (quoting Estate of Capps v. Blondeau, 2014 WL 2804719, *6 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 17, 2014)).

Worth Noting

  • The Court’s decision came in a rarely-seen-in-the-wild Order of Inclination, in which the parties asked the Court to indicate “its probable disposition of the motion if the appeal were not otherwise pending.” The Court agreed to do so under its “limited jurisdiction to hear a Rule 60(b) motion and to indicate its probable disposition after the notice of appeal has been entered[.]” Id. ¶ 3 (quoting Hagwood v. Odom, 88 N.C. App. 513, 518 (1988)).
  • While the Business Court had originally been slated to transition to Odyssey earlier this year, its guidance that parties should continue dual filing “until further notice” remains in place. Id. ¶ 16. 

Brad Risinger is a partner in the Raleigh office of Fox Rothschild LLP.