North Carolina § 7A-45 - 3. Superior court judges designated for complex business cases.

§ 7A-45. 3. Superior court judges designated for complex business cases.

The Chief Justice may exercise the authority under rules of practice prescribed pursuant to G.S. 7A-34 to designate one or more of the special superior court judges authorized by G.S. 7A-45.1 to hear and decide complex business cases as prescribed by the rules of practice. Any judge so designated shall be known as a Business Court Judge and shall preside in the Business Court. If there is more than one business court judge, including any judge serving as a senior business court judge pursuant to G.S. 7A-52(a1) or upon recall pursuant to G.S. 7A-57, the Chief Justice may designate one of them as the Chief Business Court Judge. If there is no designation by the Chief Justice, the judge with the longest term of service on the court shall serve as Chief Business Court Judge until the Chief Justice makes an appointment to the position. The presiding Business Court Judge shall issue a written opinion in connection with any order granting or denying a motion under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12, 56, 59, or 60, or any order finally disposing of a complex business case, other than an order effecting a settlement agreement or jury verdict. History (2005-425, s. 1.1; 2014-102, s. 2; 2016-91, s. 1.) Editor's Note. - Session Laws 2005-425, s. 4, made this section effective January 1, 2006, and applicable to fees assessed or collected on or after that date. Session Laws 2014-100, s. 18B.1(d), repealed Session Laws 2009-451, s. 15.4, formerly noted under this section, which contained a reporting requirement as to North Carolina Business Court activities. Session Laws 2014-100, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as 'The Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2014."' Session Laws 2014-100, s. 38.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2014-2015 fiscal year." Session Laws 2014-100, s. 38.7, is a severability clause. Session Laws 2017-122, s. 1, provides: "In order to make North Carolina a leading jurisdiction for the resolution of business, commercial, financial, and other legal disputes, the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore a report recommending whether and how to establish an arbitration program within the North Carolina Business Court, including how parties may make themselves subject to the jurisdiction of said program, required qualifications and trainings for arbitrators, and requirements for persons who may represent parties in arbitration proceedings before the Business Court. Such recommendations may include suggestions on the form of appeal for both binding and nonbinding arbitrations in cases arbitrated under such a proposal. The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts or through the North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission may also include recommendations for establishing a mediation program operated by the Business Court, including suggestions as to how parties may make themselves subject to the jurisdiction of said program, required qualifications for mediators, and for persons who may represent parties in mediation proceedings." Effect of Amendments. - Session Laws 2014-102, s. 2, effective August 6, 2014, added the last sentence. Session Laws 2016-91, s. 1, effective July 11, 2016, inserted "including any judge serving as a senior business court judge pursuant to G.S. 7A-52(a1) or upon recall pursuant to G.S. 7A-57" in the third sentence and substituted "Chief Business Court Judge" for "Senior Business Court Judge" wherever it appeared in the section. Legal Periodicals. - For article, "A Plea to North Carolina: Bring Fairness to the Assessment of Civil Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities," see 39 Campbell L. Rev. 241 (2017).