Burns, et al. v. Beacham.

Defendant Ben Seal ("Defendant Seal") appeals from the trial court's discovery sanctions order striking his answer, entering a judgment by default, and ordering him to pay attorney's fees and expenses. He also appeals from the trial court's judgment against him and co-defendant Mike Beacham finding them jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of $657,000.00 plus interest, for $25,000.00 in additional attorney's fees, and for $2,312.75 in costs.

Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, and, in the alternative, a true and accurate accounting, based on defendants' alleged civil conspiracy, conversion, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, violation of the North Carolina Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allegedly invested more than $200,000.00 with defendants based on representations that defendants were agents of Rynor Corporation, a company in need of investment capital to be repaid on a monthly basis at a greatly enhanced value. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants had acknowledged that plaintiffs' investments had grown as promised and that plaintiffs were entitled to more than $1.8 million from defendants, but that defendants had failed to pay plaintiffs what they were owed. Defendant Seal filed an answer denying all of the essential allegations of plaintiffs' complaint. Defendant Beacham failed to answer plaintiffs' complaint, and the record indicates that a judgment by default was entered against him.

On 20 March 2000, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Seal to appear for the taking of his deposition after he failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition on 16 March 2000. Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel and Defendant Seal agreed to the taking of his deposition on 23 March 2000; however, Defendant Seal again failed to appear without being excused by plaintiffs or the trial court. On 27 March 2000, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant Seal for his failure toappear on two occasions for the taking of his deposition after proper notice. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant Seal's answer be stricken, that the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint be taken as true, that Defendant Seal be prohibited from introducing any evidence contradicting plaintiffs' allegations, and that plaintiffs receive such other relief to which they were entitled.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

In conclusion, we find no merit in any of Defendant Seal's arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order entered 4 May 2000, the judgment entered 29 September 2000, and the corrected judgment entered 13 December 2000.

Affirmed.

Unavailable

Unavailable

C.L.