Hundley v. AutoMoney ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCCOA-489
No. COA21-305
Filed 19 July 2022
Rockingham County, No. 20 CVS 1204
JOSHUA HUNDLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOMONEY, INC., Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from Order entered 29 January 2021 by Judge Susan E.
Bray in Rockingham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8
February 2022.
Brown, Faucher, Peraldo & Benson, PLLC, by James R. Faucher and Jeffrey
K. Peraldo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Michael Montecalvo and Scott D.
Anderson, for defendant-appellant.
GORE, Judge.
¶1 Defendant AutoMoney, Inc. appeals from an Order Denying Motions to
Dismiss. We affirm.
I. Background
¶2 Plaintiff Joshua Hundley is a citizen of Rockingham County, North Carolina.
In 2017, Mr. Hundley received a car tile loan from AutoMoney. Mr. Hundley first
learned about car title loans from a friend. Mr. Hundley specifically learned of
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
AutoMoney’s services through a subsequent internet search. AutoMoney is a car title
loan provider based out of South Carolina. AutoMoney does not maintain any
physical locations in North Carolina.
¶3 Following his initial internet search, Mr. Hundley called AutoMoney from
North Carolina. During this telephone conversation, the AutoMoney employee asked
Mr. Hundley is he was interested in obtaining a car title loan. The AutoMoney
employee asked Mr. Hundley some additional questions to determine his eligibility
for a car title loan and then informed him during the initial telephone conversation
that AutoMoney could loan him at least $1,000.00. The AutoMoney employee then
told Mr. Hundley to drive to South Carolina in order to obtain the car title loan.
¶4 On 2 September 2017, Mr. Hundley drove from Rockingham County, North
Carolina to Indian Land, South Carolina, where an AutoMoney store is located. In
the window of the Indian Land, South Carolina AutoMoney store, there is a sign
which reads, “NC Titles Welcomed.” While at the Indian Land, South Carolina store,
AutoMoney issued Mr. Hundley a car title loan. The loan was in the amount of
$1,220.00 at an annual interest rate of 158.000%. AutoMoney then put a lien on Mr.
Hundley’s vehicle through the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
(“NCDMV”).
¶5 Mr. Hundley made payments on the car title loan over the phone from North
Carolina. On multiple occasions, AutoMoney called Mr. Hundley in North Carolina
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
for collection purposes. Eventually, Mr. Hundley fell behind on making payments on
the car title loan. AutoMoney then took possession of Mr. Hundley’s car from his
driveway in North Carolina.
¶6 On 20 May 2020, Mr. Hundley filed a Complaint in Rockingham County
Superior Court alleging causes of action for violations of the North Carolina
Consumer Finance Act, for unfair and deceptive trade practices, usury allegations,
and seeking declaratory relief. In response, AutoMoney filed a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) on 30 June
2020. Both parties submitted affidavits and evidence pertaining to the Motion to
Dismiss. The matter came on for hearing on 25 January 2021. The trial court entered
an Order Denying Motions to Dismiss on 29 January 2021. AutoMoney filed Notice
of Appeal on 22 February 2021.
II. Appellate Filings
¶7 As a preliminary matter, multiple appellate motions have been filed.
AutoMoney filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 24 June 2021 and Mr. Hundley
filed a Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal on 23 September 2021. We discuss
these appellate filings in turn.
A. Petition for Writ of Certiorari
¶8 Under N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1), “a writ of certiorari will only be issued upon a
showing of appropriate circumstances in a civil case where [inter alia] no right to
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
appeal from an interlocutory order exists.” Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., 165
N.C. App. 1, 12, 598 S.E.2d 570, 578-79 (2004). This Court has determined that it is
appropriate to grant writ of certiorari in the interest of justice when the impact of the
lawsuit is “significant,” the issues involved are “important,” and the case presents a
need for the writ in the interest of the “efficient administration of justice,” or the
granting of the writ would “promote judicial economy.” See Stetser, 165 N.C. App. at
12, 598 S.E.2d at 578-79 (granting review of a class action certification based on the
“need for efficient administration of justice,” the “significance of the issues in
dispute,” the “significant impact” of the lawsuit, the effect of the order on “numerous
individuals and corporations” and the “substantial amount of potential liability”
involved); see also Hill v. Stubhub, Inc., 219 N.C. App. 227, 232, 727 S.E.2d 550, 554
(2012) (granting review in order to “further the interests of justice”). Interlocutory
review tends to serve judicial economy when an appeal presents pure questions of
law, “not dependent on further factual development.” Lamb v. Wedgewood S. Corp.,
308 N.C. 419, 425, 302 S.E.2d 868, 872 (1983).
¶9 AutoMoney’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of their Motion to Dismiss
presents two issues for this Court to review: (1) whether the trial court erred by
denying defendant’s 12(b)(2) motion and determining that it has personal jurisdiction
over AutoMoney and (2) whether the trial court erred by denying AutoMoney’s
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. A trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
personal jurisdiction implicates a substantial right and is immediately appealable,
independent of a petition for writ of certiorari. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b) (“Any
interested party shall have the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as
to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant . . . .”).
AutoMoney asks this Court to exercise our discretion to review the denial of its
12(b)(6) motion, which otherwise would not be immediately appealable. AutoMoney’s
12(b)(6) motion is based on the enforceability of a choice of law provision found in the
loan agreement entered between AutoMoney and Mr. Hundley. This issue appears to
be a pure question of law which does not require further development of the factual
record. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, we grant certiorari and elect to
exercise our discretion to review the denial of AutoMoney’s 12(b)(6) motion in the
instant appeal.
B. Motion to Dismiss Appeal
¶ 10 Mr. Hundley filed a Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal that requests this
Court to dismiss as interlocutory the portion of AutoMoney’s appeal which relates to
the 12(b)(6) motion. “Ordinarily, a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is an interlocutory order from which
there is no [immediate] right of appeal.” Grant v. Miller, 170 N.C. App. 184, 186, 611
S.E.2d 477, 478 (2005). However, as discussed above, it is in the interest of judicial
economy for this issue to be decided as part of the present appeal. Thus, we deny Mr.
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
Hundley’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal.
III. Personal Jurisdiction
¶ 11 We first review AutoMoney’s argument that the trial court erred in denying its
12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. AutoMoney asserts that
minimum contacts to render personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible do not
exist. AutoMoney does not challenge the applicability of the long-arm statute, thus,
the sole issue before this Court regarding personal jurisdiction is whether the trial
court properly concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants did not
violate due process.
¶ 12 “The standard of review to be applied by a trial court in deciding a motion
under Rule 12(b)(2) depends upon the procedural context confronting the court.”
Parker v. Town of Erwin, 243 N.C. App. 84, 95, 776 S.E.2d 710, 720 (2015) (citations
and quotations omitted). “If the parties submit dueling affidavits the court may hear
the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, or the court may direct
that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.” Id. at 97,
776 S.E.2d at 721 (cleaned up). “If the trial court chooses to decide the motion based
on affidavits, the trial judge must determine the weight and sufficiency of the
evidence presented in the affidavits much as a juror.” Id. (cleaned up). “When this
Court reviews a decision as to personal jurisdiction, it considers only whether the
findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record;
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
if so, this Court must affirm the order of the trial court.” Id. at 97-98, 776 S.E.2d at
722 (citation omitted).
¶ 13 “The determination of whether jurisdiction is statutorily and constitutionally
permissible due to contact with the forum is a question of fact.” Cooper v. Shealy, 140
N.C. App. 729, 732, 537 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2000) (emphasis added) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). “When this Court reviews a decision as to personal
jurisdiction, it considers only whether the findings of fact by the trial court are
supported by competent evidence in the record; if so, this Court must affirm the order
of the trial court.” Banc of Am. Sec. LLC v. Evergreen Int’l Aviation, Inc., 169 N.C.
App. 690, 694, 611 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2005) (cleaned up). If the trial court’s findings of
fact are supported by competent evidence in the record, then we must affirm the trial
court’s order, no matter how we might view the evidence. Ponder v. Been, 275 N.C.
App. 626, 637, 853 S.E.2d 302, 309-10 (Stroud, J., dissenting), rev’d per curiam per
dissent, 2022-NCSC-24. “Therefore, the question for the appellate court is whether,
as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory, whether
properly labeled or not.” Replacements, Ltd. v. Midwesterling, 133 N.C. App. 139, 141,
515 S.E.2d 46, 48 (1999) (cleaned up) (citing Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.,
112 N.C. App. 295, 300, 435 S.E.2d 537, 541 (1993), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 770,
442 S.E.2d 519 (1994)).
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
¶ 14 Personal jurisdiction analysis involves two steps. “First, the court must
determine if the North Carolina long-arm statute’s (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4)
requirements are met. If so, the court must then determine whether such an exercise
of jurisdiction comports with due process.” Cooper, 140 N.C. App. at 732, 537 S.E.2d
at 856.
¶ 15 “To satisfy the requirements of the due process clause, there must exist ‘certain
minimum contacts [between the non-resident defendant and the forum] such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.’” Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries Corp., 318 N.C. 361, 365,
348 S.E.2d 782, 786 (1986) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.
310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). “When evaluating whether minimum contacts with the
forum exists, a court typically evaluates the quantity and nature of the contact, the
relationship between the contact and the cause of action, the interest of the forum
state, the convenience of the parties, and the location of the witnesses and material
evidence.” Berrier v. Carefusion 203, Inc., 231 N.C. App. 516, 527, 753 S.E.2d 157,
165 (2014) (cleaned up).
¶ 16 The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal
jurisdiction that can exist with regard to non-resident defendants: general
jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. “General jurisdiction is appliable to cases where
the defendant’s ‘affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
render them essentially at home in the forum State.’” Beem USA Ltd.-Liab. Ltd.
P’ship v. Grax Consulting, LLC, 373 N.C. 297, 303, 838 S.E.2d 158, 162 (2020)
(quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 180 L.
Ed. 2d 796, 803 (2011) (internal citation and quotation omitted)). “Specific
jurisdiction, conversely, encompasses cases in which the suit arises out of or relates
to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Id. (cleaned up) (citing Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624, 633-34 (2014) (citation omitted)).
Specific jurisdiction, “is, at its core, focused on the relationship among the defendant,
the forum, and the litigation.” Id. (cleaned up). “A defendant’s physical presence in
the forum state is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction.” Button v. Level Four Orthotics
& Prosthetics, Inc., 2022-NCSC-19, ¶ 39 (citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283,
188 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2014)). “While a contractual relationship between an out-of-state
defendant and a North Carolina resident is not dispositive of whether minimum
contacts exists, ‘a single contract may be a sufficient basis for the exercise of specific
personal jurisdiction if it has a substantial connection with this State.’” Button, 2022-
NCSC-19, ¶ 39 (quoting Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 367, 348 S.E.2d at 786). In the present
matter, the trial court only considered whether specific jurisdiction exists, thus our
analysis follows suit.
¶ 17 The evidence presented to the trial court indicates that AutoMoney posted
advertisements on their website specifically targeted at North Carolina residents and
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
ran advertisements in a local magazine which is only distributed in nine counties in
North Carolina and five counties in South Carolina. The affidavit of a former
AutoMoney assistant manager and loan officer indicates that AutoMoney employees
would routinely receive and return calls to North Carolina borrowers, as part of those
calls AutoMoney employees would ask where the caller is located, and that
AutoMoney mailed solicitation flyers into North Carolina. The evidence also shows
that AutoMoney employs a vehicle recovery service which is located in North Carolina
and has recovered four hundred and forty-two vehicles in North Carolina for
AutoMoney. Regarding Mr. Hundley specifically, the evidence shows that Mr.
Hundley called AutoMoney from North Carolina. During that telephone conversation
the AutoMoney employee asked if Mr. Hundley was interested in getting a car title
loan, asked questions about his car to determine eligibility for a car title loan, told
Mr. Hundley that AutoMoney could loan him at least $1,000, and the AutoMoney
employee instructed Mr. Hundley to drive to the AutoMoney store in South Carolina
to receive the loan. When Mr. Hundley arrived at the AutoMoney store there was a
sign in the window which read “NC Titles Welcomed.” Additionally, AutoMoney put
a lien on Mr. Hundley’s vehicle using the NCDMV, Mr. Hundley made payments on
the loan over the telephone from North Carolina, AutoMoney called Mr. Hundley in
North Carolina several times for collection purposes, and when Mr. Hundley fell
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
behind on payments, AutoMoney took possession of his vehicle in North Carolina.
The trial court’s order made findings of fact in line with this evidence.
¶ 18 The trial court’s order stated that, based upon the findings of fact, AutoMoney
“has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in North
Carolina.” The trial court went on to state that AutoMoney “has created continuing
obligations between itself and borrowers in North Carolina,” that Mr. Hundley’s
claims arise out of AutoMoney’s activities in North Carolina, and that the exercise of
personal jurisdiction is constitutionally reasonable.
¶ 19 The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. As such,
they are conclusive on appeal. Button, 2022-NCSC-19, ¶ 45. Further, the trial court’s
findings of fact do support its conclusion that specific personal jurisdiction is proper
over AutoMoney.
¶ 20 “There must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of
the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws.” A.R. Haire, Inc. v. St. Denis, 176 N.C. App. 255,
260, 625 S.E.2d 894, 899 (2006) (citing Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C.
674, 679, 231 S.E.2d 629, 632 (1977)). “In determining minimum contacts, the court
looks at several factors, including: (1) the quantity of the contacts; (2) the nature and
quality of the contacts; (3) the source and connection of the cause of action with those
contacts; (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5) the convenience to the parties.”
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
Id. (citation omitted). “These factors are not to be applied mechanically; rather, the
court must weigh the factors and determine what is fair and reasonable to both
parties. No single factor controls; rather, all factors must be weighed in light of
fundamental fairness and the circumstances of the case.” Id. (cleaned up).
¶ 21 Applying the factors from A.R. Haire, it is clear AutoMoney’s contacts with
North Carolina came in the form of contracting with a North Carolina resident
despite having the knowledge that Mr. Hundley’s performance of the contract (i.e.,
making payments on the loan) would occur from North Carolina, AutoMoney made
collection calls to Mr. Hundley in North Carolina, AutoMoney placed a lien on Mr.
Hundley’s vehicle in North Carolina, and AutoMoney entered North Carolina to take
possession of Mr. Hundley’s vehicle. These contacts are directly related to the car title
loan which is the subject of the cause of action. Further, North Carolina clearly has
an interest in these contacts, exhibited by the laws enacted by the North Carolina
General Assembly concerning loans such as the loan at issue here. It is not this
Court’s responsibility to reweigh these factors. It is sufficient that the factors are
supported by the findings of fact and the findings of fact are supported by competent
evidence, as this Court’s sole responsibility on appeal is to ensure that the trial court’s
factual findings regarding personal jurisdiction are supported by competent evidence.
See Ponder, 275 N.C. App. at 637, 853 S.E.2d at 309-10 (Stroud, J., dissenting);
Evergreen Int’l Aviation, 169 N.C. App. at 694, 611 S.E.2d at 183.
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
¶ 22 Compare the matter sub judice to Stallings v. Hahn, 99 N.C. App. 213, 392
S.E.2d 632 (1990), where this Court concluded that jurisdiction could not
constitutionally be exercised. In Stallings, the only contacts between the defendant
and North Carolina were an advertisement placed in a national magazine, telephone
calls between the plaintiff and defendant, and a cashier’s check sent by plaintiff to
defendant. Id. at 216, 392 S.E.2d at 633. In contrast, in the case sub judice, defendant
placed an advertisement on their website that was targeted at customers in North
Carolina and ran an advertisement in a regional publication that is only distributed
in North Carolina and South Carolina. AutoMoney also received and returned calls
to/from customers in North Carolina and regularly hired a company which is located
in and operates in North Carolina to repossess vehicles in North Carolina. Further,
AutoMoney placed a lien on Mr. Hundley’s vehicle in North Carolina through the
NCDMV, called Mr. Hundley in North Carolina regarding his car title loan, and took
possession of Mr. Hundley’s vehicle in North Carolina.
¶ 23 This Court does not believe that AutoMoney could reasonably and in good faith
advertise their car title loan services in North Carolina, enter into a loan agreement
with a North Carolina resident, secure that loan with collateral which is registered
and located in North Carolina, place a lien on property located in North Carolina
through the NCDMV, and enter North Carolina to take possession of the collateral
and not expect to be subject to the privileges and protections of North Carolina law
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
merely because the loan paperwork was signed in South Carolina. The trial court did
not err by concluding AutoMoney is subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina
and denying AutoMoney’s 12(b)(2) motion.
IV. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
¶ 24 AutoMoney next argues that the trial court erred in denying its Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss, because the trial court should have applied the choice-of-law
provision found in the parties’ loan agreement which calls for the application of South
Carolina law.
¶ 25 A Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, is a motion to dismiss the cause of action
for “[f]ailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-
1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2020).
The Motion to Dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests
the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In ruling on the
motion the allegations of the complaint must be viewed as
admitted, and on that basis the court must determine as a
matter of law whether the allegations state a claim for
which relief may be granted.
Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 185, 254 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1979) (citations
omitted). “This court must conduct a de novo review of the pleadings to determine
their legal sufficiency and to determine whether the trial court’s ruling on the motion
to dismiss was correct.” Leary v. N.C. Forest Prods., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 396, 400, 580
S.E.2d 1, 4, aff’d per curiam, 357 N.C. 567, 597 S.E.2d 673 (2003). “As a general rule,
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty
that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in
support of the claim.” Stanback, 297 N.C. at 185, 254 S.E.2d at 615 (cleaned up).
¶ 26 In analyzing the sufficiency of the complaint, for the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, the complaint must be liberally construed. Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C. App. 338,
340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987).
A complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss
where no insurmountable bar to recovery on the claim
alleged appears on the face of the complaint and where
allegations contained therein are sufficient to give a
defendant notice of the nature and basis of plaintiff’s claim
so as to enable him to answer and prepare for trial.
Forbis v. Honeycutt, 301 N.C. 699, 701, 273 S.E.2d 240, 241 (1981).
¶ 27 In the case sub judice, Mr. Hundley’s complaint exclusively alleges North
Carolina statutory claims. Mr. Hundley’s North Carolina statutory claims are
supported by sufficient allegations in the complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
In fact, at the hearing on AutoMoney’s Motion to Dismiss, AutoMoney’s attorney
stated, “We’re not challenging that [Mr. Hundley] properly stated a claim based on
North Carolina statutes . . . .” Instead, at the hearing before the trial court, and again
on appeal, AutoMoney argues that the choice-of-law provision in the loan agreement
precludes Mr. Hundley from bringing any claim relating to the car title loan he
received from AutoMoney under North Carolina law.
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
¶ 28 We believe AutoMoney’s arguments go beyond the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. As exhibited by AutoMoney’s counsel’s statements at the hearing on the
motions to dismiss regarding the sufficiency of Mr. Hunleys’ North Carolina statutory
claims, AutoMoney’s arguments go beyond the pleadings and address the merits of
Mr. Hundley’s claims. However, review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be
concerned with whether the plaintiff properly stated a claim.
A 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted addresses the claim itself and the
moving party is simply asserting that the pleading to which
the motion is directed does not sufficiently state a claim for
relief. Unless the motion is converted into one for summary
judgment, as permitted by the last sentence in Rule 12(b),
it does not challenge the actual existence of a meritorious
claim. By contrast, the summary judgment motion
embraces more than the pleadings and the trial court may
properly consider affidavits, depositions, and other
information designated in the Rule. The Rule 56 motion is
an assertion that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment on the merits as a matter of law on the basis of
the record then existing.
Shoffner Indus., Inc. v. W.B. Lloyd Constr. Co., 42 N.C. App. 259, 262, 257 S.E.2d 50,
53, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 296, 259 S.E.2d 301 (1979) (emphasis added). The Rule
12(b)(6) motion is concerned with the contents of the complaint. Id. at 262-63, 257
S.E.2d at 50. Instead of challenging the sufficiency of the North Carolina statutory
claims alleged, AutoMoney’s arguments asks the court to interpret and apply a
choice-of-law provision found in an outside document, albeit a document and choice-
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
of-law provision that is likely to be central to determining the merits of the case.
Without passing judgment on the merits of the parties’ claims and arguments, we
believe that AutoMoney’s arguments go beyond the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
and are better suited accompanying a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
¶ 29 The trial court did not review a motion for summary judgment and the issue
before this court is whether the trial court properly denied AutoMoney’s Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Hundley has sufficiently alleged North Carolina statutory
claims, and AutoMoney does not argue otherwise. The issue of whether the choice-of-
law provision found in the loan agreement is controlling under a conflict of law
analysis and whether that choice-of-law provision precludes Mr. Hundley from
bringing North Carolina statutory claims relating to the loan agreement is beyond
the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and this Court’s review in the present appeal.
Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying AutoMoney’s 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss.
V. Conclusion
¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant-appellant AutoMoney
is subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina, and thus, the trial court did not
err in denying AutoMoney’s 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, Mr. Hundley’s
complaint sufficiently alleges North Carolina statutory claims, and the trial court did
not err in denying AutoMoney’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
HUNDLEY V. AUTOMONEY, INC.
2022-NCCOA-489
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED.
Judges HAMPSON and WOOD concur.