District Court, E.D. North Carolina, 2021

Davis v. Davis

Davis v. Davis
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Decided May 12, 2021
Davis v. Davis

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:20-CV-609-D ARTHUR E. DAVIS, II, ) Plaintiff, ; Vv. ORDER DEBRA K. DAVIS, et al., □ Defendants.

Plaintiff Arthur E. Davis, II (“Davis” or plaintiff’) is a former Virginia attorney who so mishandled funds from his parents’ estate that the Wake County Superior Court Clerk removed him as executor on September 5, 2012, and he ultimately consented to revocation of his Virginia Bar License on November 21, 2014. See Order, In re Arthur Emerson Davis II, VSB Docket No. 13- 042-094-524 (Nov. 21, 2014) (unpublished). Since that time, Davis has engaged in unending litigation against his siblings concerning the estate. This case is the latest chapter.

For the reasons stated in defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss [D.E. 31], the court DISMISSES counts 2-8 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the probate exception. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308-12 (2006); Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-2-4(a). The court DISMISSES plaintiff's fraud, fraudulent transfer, slander, and distribution claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to collateral estoppel and res judicata. See [D.E. 31] 7-14. The court DISMISSES plaintiff's conversion, malicious prosecution, fraud, slander, and fraudulent transfer claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to the statute of limitations. See [D.E.

31] 14-17, 19-21. The court DISMISSES plaintiff's extortion claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See [D.E. 31] 18-19. The court DISMISSES plaintiff's slander claim based on judicial privilege. See id. at 19-21. The court DISMISSES all claims against Karla L. Nelson, Joseph Davis, Pamela Rock, and Thomas Davis pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2).

See [D.E. 31] 21-22. The court GRANTS defendants’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees because there is “a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party in any pleading.” N.C. Gen Stat. § 6-21.5; [D.E. 31] 22-24. Defendants shall document and file their request for reasonable attorneys’ fees not later than June 14, 2021.

SO ORDERED. This {4 day of May 2021. ~ aa EA J S C. DEVER II United States District Judge □

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.