The attorneys at Parton Law, PLLC take pride in our ability to solve problems and seize every opportunity of advantage to obtain favorable results on behalf of our clients. Below are some of our many successes, followed by an important disclaimer at the bottom of this page.
B.S. v. B.C.C.H.A.
Date: August, 2022
Practice Area: Owners' Association Litigation
Description: Client, a residential real estate investor, was unable to effectuate the sale of investment property due to the Owners’ Association’s repeated refusal to produce needed financial records, and false representation that Client’s account was in arrears and the property was subject to foreclosure.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who petitioned the Court for an order allowing Client to inspect the Association’s records. Without a formal hearing, the Court granted Parton Law’s petition and ordered that the Association permit inspection of its records and pay Client's inspection costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
D.T. v. E.W. Corp.
Date: January, 2022
Practice Area: Contractual & Business Disputes
Description: Client’s contract had been terminated by company to obstruct Client from receiving large sums of vested income that Client had earned under the contract.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of litigation to bring company to the negotiating table. After extensive negotiations and without litigation the company agreed to pay Parton Law’s Client a satisfactory settlement amount.
M.H. v. K.W.
Date: June, 2021
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Description: Client was being frivolously sued for breach of contract, specific performance, and attorney’s fees.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who answered the complaint and used a pre-emptive tactic to shift the responsibility of attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed their claims against Parton Law’s Client without a trial or payment.
P.C.S. v. N.B., LLC
Date: June, 2021
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Rights
Description: Client was one of a number of initial investors and debt-holders of a startup company being acquired by a large, publicly-traded company. Startup company’s investors and shareholders were being offered a small fraction of their initial investment in the form of publicly-traded company’s restricted stock, and told they had no option but to accept the offer.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of litigation and understanding of publicly-traded company’s need to satisfy all startup company’s debt-holders to enforce Parton Law’s Client’s rights. Without a lawsuit being filed, Parton Law’s Client received a lump sum payment, stock in the publicly-traded company, and a future valuable contract with publicly-traded company.
J.B. v. S.G.T.
Date: February, 2021
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: Construction company hired Parton Law after customer refused to pay for Client’s materials and labor involved in constructing the customer’s large commercial restaurant.
Result: Construction company hired Parton Law who filed a lawsuit against restaurant customer for breach of contract. Prior to any hearing or discovery, restaurant customer agreed to repay construction company in full plus interest with favorable payment terms secured by real property owned by the restaurant customer’s owners.
N.C. Dep.’t of Health & Human Services v. J.D. v. M.A.
Date: January, 2021
Practice Area: Defamation, Business Litigation, Administrative Law
Description: Client came to Parton Law after being suspended in his occupation by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services following false, derogatory reports made by a third-party accusing Client of various business-related misconduct. As a result, Client was completely unable to work and earn a living and was being subjected to an invasive and lengthy investigation by NC DHHS.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who immediately filed suit for defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against the third-party, as well as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to allow Client to continue operating his business while NC DHHS conducted its investigation. The Court granted Parton Law’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, allowing Client to immediately resume the operation of his business, and NC DHHS concluded their investigation shortly thereafter, finding the third-party’s allegations “unsubstantiated”. Client settled his lawsuit against third-party after third-party agreed to pay Client’s attorney’s fees.
A.V. v. D.V.
Date: November, 2020
Practice Area: Business Litigation
Description: Client forced to defend against claims for breach of contract, conversion, and unfair and deceptive trade practices after assuming responsibility for family financial affairs resulting in alleged loss of income to the Plaintiff.
Result: Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without a hearing after Parton Law filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Following their dismissal Parton Law filed a motion resulting in Plaintiff being ordered to pay all of Client’s attorney’s fees and costs.
E.W. & K.W. v. C.W.
Date: October, 2020
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Litigation
Description: Clients were minority shareholders in a large, profitable, closely-held limited liability company. Company’s majority shareholders had failed to make adequate distributions to Clients and other minority shareholders, and were engaging in unscrupulous bookkeeping practices to make Company appear less profitable than it actually was. Clients were already engaged in ongoing litigation in which their previous attorney had agreed to an unfavorable settlement without Clients’ authorization.
Result: Clients hired Parton Law, who filed a successful motion to prevent the unauthorized settlement agreement from being enforced. Parton Law then employed financial experts who increased Clients’ prospective damages by providing evidence of the financial opportunity cost associated with Company’s failure to make appropriate distributions to Clients. Clients reached a settlement with Company for their prior distributions and negotiated a favorable buyout of their interest in the Company.
A.H. v. D.H.P.H., LLC
Date: February 2020
Practice Area: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Contract
Description: Client contracted with Defendant Company for a large-scale construction project. After failing to properly perform the agreed upon work, Defendant Company augmented contract-related documents to make it appear as if their work had been completed in a satisfactory manner.
Result: Client hired Parton Law who immediately filed suit for breach of contract and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Following a trial, a jury found in Client’s favor on all counts and awarded Client damages equal to the full price of the contract with Defendant Company.
C.C. v. F.C., et al.
Date: July, 2018
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: A Medical Business hired a company to remodel and build additional exam rooms for business expansion. Improper planning and installation resulted in a flood damaging the business’s building structure, leaving mold and rendering the building unfit to conduct business. Further, the Medical Business signed an ill-advised release so that the company would complete the construction quickly allowing them to resume business.
Result: Medical Business hired Parton Law who, without filing a complaint, forced the company and its subcontractor to pay for all building damage, including all material costs, pro-active mold removal, and lost profits for days the Medical Business was forced to be closed.
J.C. v. O.B., et al.
Date: July, 2018
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client invested in a business with the agreement that Client was to be paid back principal investment plus return on investment. The Defendant never made single payment was non-responsive to communication from Client prior to retaining Parton Law.
Result: Parton Law filed suit and Client received a six-figure judgment and award of attorneys as a result of the opposing parties failure to comply.
D.D. v. U.P.
Date: August, 2017
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: General Contractor failed to pay Subcontractor Client for thousands of hours of labor and materials performed in relation to one of Uptown Charlotte’s large high-rise construction projects.
Result: Parton Law placed a lien on funds from work associated with the project, forcing General Contractor to agree to confidential settlement payment to make Client whole.
B.R. v. C.R., Inc.
Date: April, 2017
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Rights
Description: Client was one of several initial investors in a startup company being acquired in a transaction that was to leave the equity-holders with no return and loss of their initial investments. Nearly all the company’s equity holders had agreed to accept less than 1% of their initial investment through the acquisition.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of stalling the acquisition through use of a court ordered injunction to enforce the Client’s rights. Without a lawsuit being filed, the company paid Parton Law’s Client a lump sum that was exponentially greater than the amount received by other shareholders.
C. Inc. v. W.K.
Date: March, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Corporate Client was unable to conduct regular business due to threats from larger competitor related to non-competition agreement.
Result: Parton Law asserted that the agreement was unenforceable and initiated eventual settlement that voided competitor's agreement without any payment or future contractual obligations by Client.
B.P. v. C.R.
Date: March, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client was an angel-investor in a startup corporation that had recently informed all investors they would not be receiving any return, despite the fact that the corporation was about to be acquired by another corporate entity for a large cash payment. At the time of retaining Parton Law every other investor had acquiesced and settled their matter, signing a release of right to any claim.
Result: After threatening to tie up the corporation's acquisition through a little known NC foreign corporation asset freeze statute, the corporation settled and client received 25 times the funds that other investors did.
Corporate Plaintiff v. B.P.
Date: February, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client came to Firm with three pending lawsuits by a Corporate Plaintiff alleging the fraudulent transfer of assets seeking over 1 million dollars in damages and the seizure of Client's current business holdings.
Result: After Parton Law filed Motions to Dismiss based on improper jurisdiction and technical readings of the Fraudulent Transfer Statute, Corporate Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed all three pending cases the day before the Motions were to be heard in court and received nothing from our Client.
H.G. v. B.N.
Date: February, 2016
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Corporate Plaintiff filed suit against Client for alleged violation of non-compete agreement seeking six-figure damages.
Result: Client settled for approximately 3% of what Corporate Plaintiff was seeking, and was released from former non-compete agreement.
V.S. v. Corporate Defendant
Date: May, 2014
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Client, a foreign musician and rock-n-roll enthusiast, was defrauded into purchasing a valuable, iconic Eric Clapton guitar from a local dealer who never actually possessed the guitar.
Result: Full judgment entered in Client's favor while Defendant, who was found to be defrauding many other musicians and collectors, was forced to declare bankruptcy.
In re P.A.C.
Date: July, 2013
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Corporate Client had previously received unfavorable decision from an Appeals Referee requiring them to make recurring unemployment payments to former employee who had been terminated for misconduct.
Result: Decision of Appeals Referee was completely overturned after Parton Law written appeal to the Employment Security Commission.
DISCLAIMER: The cases mentioned on this site are illustrative of the matters handled by our Firm, and not all case results are provided. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Date: August, 2022
Practice Area: Owners' Association Litigation
Description: Client, a residential real estate investor, was unable to effectuate the sale of investment property due to the Owners’ Association’s repeated refusal to produce needed financial records, and false representation that Client’s account was in arrears and the property was subject to foreclosure.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who petitioned the Court for an order allowing Client to inspect the Association’s records. Without a formal hearing, the Court granted Parton Law’s petition and ordered that the Association permit inspection of its records and pay Client's inspection costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
D.T. v. E.W. Corp.
Date: January, 2022
Practice Area: Contractual & Business Disputes
Description: Client’s contract had been terminated by company to obstruct Client from receiving large sums of vested income that Client had earned under the contract.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of litigation to bring company to the negotiating table. After extensive negotiations and without litigation the company agreed to pay Parton Law’s Client a satisfactory settlement amount.
M.H. v. K.W.
Date: June, 2021
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Description: Client was being frivolously sued for breach of contract, specific performance, and attorney’s fees.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who answered the complaint and used a pre-emptive tactic to shift the responsibility of attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed their claims against Parton Law’s Client without a trial or payment.
P.C.S. v. N.B., LLC
Date: June, 2021
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Rights
Description: Client was one of a number of initial investors and debt-holders of a startup company being acquired by a large, publicly-traded company. Startup company’s investors and shareholders were being offered a small fraction of their initial investment in the form of publicly-traded company’s restricted stock, and told they had no option but to accept the offer.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of litigation and understanding of publicly-traded company’s need to satisfy all startup company’s debt-holders to enforce Parton Law’s Client’s rights. Without a lawsuit being filed, Parton Law’s Client received a lump sum payment, stock in the publicly-traded company, and a future valuable contract with publicly-traded company.
J.B. v. S.G.T.
Date: February, 2021
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: Construction company hired Parton Law after customer refused to pay for Client’s materials and labor involved in constructing the customer’s large commercial restaurant.
Result: Construction company hired Parton Law who filed a lawsuit against restaurant customer for breach of contract. Prior to any hearing or discovery, restaurant customer agreed to repay construction company in full plus interest with favorable payment terms secured by real property owned by the restaurant customer’s owners.
N.C. Dep.’t of Health & Human Services v. J.D. v. M.A.
Date: January, 2021
Practice Area: Defamation, Business Litigation, Administrative Law
Description: Client came to Parton Law after being suspended in his occupation by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services following false, derogatory reports made by a third-party accusing Client of various business-related misconduct. As a result, Client was completely unable to work and earn a living and was being subjected to an invasive and lengthy investigation by NC DHHS.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who immediately filed suit for defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against the third-party, as well as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to allow Client to continue operating his business while NC DHHS conducted its investigation. The Court granted Parton Law’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, allowing Client to immediately resume the operation of his business, and NC DHHS concluded their investigation shortly thereafter, finding the third-party’s allegations “unsubstantiated”. Client settled his lawsuit against third-party after third-party agreed to pay Client’s attorney’s fees.
A.V. v. D.V.
Date: November, 2020
Practice Area: Business Litigation
Description: Client forced to defend against claims for breach of contract, conversion, and unfair and deceptive trade practices after assuming responsibility for family financial affairs resulting in alleged loss of income to the Plaintiff.
Result: Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without a hearing after Parton Law filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Following their dismissal Parton Law filed a motion resulting in Plaintiff being ordered to pay all of Client’s attorney’s fees and costs.
E.W. & K.W. v. C.W.
Date: October, 2020
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Litigation
Description: Clients were minority shareholders in a large, profitable, closely-held limited liability company. Company’s majority shareholders had failed to make adequate distributions to Clients and other minority shareholders, and were engaging in unscrupulous bookkeeping practices to make Company appear less profitable than it actually was. Clients were already engaged in ongoing litigation in which their previous attorney had agreed to an unfavorable settlement without Clients’ authorization.
Result: Clients hired Parton Law, who filed a successful motion to prevent the unauthorized settlement agreement from being enforced. Parton Law then employed financial experts who increased Clients’ prospective damages by providing evidence of the financial opportunity cost associated with Company’s failure to make appropriate distributions to Clients. Clients reached a settlement with Company for their prior distributions and negotiated a favorable buyout of their interest in the Company.
A.H. v. D.H.P.H., LLC
Date: February 2020
Practice Area: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Contract
Description: Client contracted with Defendant Company for a large-scale construction project. After failing to properly perform the agreed upon work, Defendant Company augmented contract-related documents to make it appear as if their work had been completed in a satisfactory manner.
Result: Client hired Parton Law who immediately filed suit for breach of contract and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Following a trial, a jury found in Client’s favor on all counts and awarded Client damages equal to the full price of the contract with Defendant Company.
C.C. v. F.C., et al.
Date: July, 2018
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: A Medical Business hired a company to remodel and build additional exam rooms for business expansion. Improper planning and installation resulted in a flood damaging the business’s building structure, leaving mold and rendering the building unfit to conduct business. Further, the Medical Business signed an ill-advised release so that the company would complete the construction quickly allowing them to resume business.
Result: Medical Business hired Parton Law who, without filing a complaint, forced the company and its subcontractor to pay for all building damage, including all material costs, pro-active mold removal, and lost profits for days the Medical Business was forced to be closed.
J.C. v. O.B., et al.
Date: July, 2018
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client invested in a business with the agreement that Client was to be paid back principal investment plus return on investment. The Defendant never made single payment was non-responsive to communication from Client prior to retaining Parton Law.
Result: Parton Law filed suit and Client received a six-figure judgment and award of attorneys as a result of the opposing parties failure to comply.
D.D. v. U.P.
Date: August, 2017
Practice Area: Construction Litigation
Description: General Contractor failed to pay Subcontractor Client for thousands of hours of labor and materials performed in relation to one of Uptown Charlotte’s large high-rise construction projects.
Result: Parton Law placed a lien on funds from work associated with the project, forcing General Contractor to agree to confidential settlement payment to make Client whole.
B.R. v. C.R., Inc.
Date: April, 2017
Practice Area: Corporate Shareholder Rights
Description: Client was one of several initial investors in a startup company being acquired in a transaction that was to leave the equity-holders with no return and loss of their initial investments. Nearly all the company’s equity holders had agreed to accept less than 1% of their initial investment through the acquisition.
Result: Client hired Parton Law, who used the threat of stalling the acquisition through use of a court ordered injunction to enforce the Client’s rights. Without a lawsuit being filed, the company paid Parton Law’s Client a lump sum that was exponentially greater than the amount received by other shareholders.
C. Inc. v. W.K.
Date: March, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Corporate Client was unable to conduct regular business due to threats from larger competitor related to non-competition agreement.
Result: Parton Law asserted that the agreement was unenforceable and initiated eventual settlement that voided competitor's agreement without any payment or future contractual obligations by Client.
B.P. v. C.R.
Date: March, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client was an angel-investor in a startup corporation that had recently informed all investors they would not be receiving any return, despite the fact that the corporation was about to be acquired by another corporate entity for a large cash payment. At the time of retaining Parton Law every other investor had acquiesced and settled their matter, signing a release of right to any claim.
Result: After threatening to tie up the corporation's acquisition through a little known NC foreign corporation asset freeze statute, the corporation settled and client received 25 times the funds that other investors did.
Corporate Plaintiff v. B.P.
Date: February, 2017
Practice Area: Commercial Litigation
Description: Client came to Firm with three pending lawsuits by a Corporate Plaintiff alleging the fraudulent transfer of assets seeking over 1 million dollars in damages and the seizure of Client's current business holdings.
Result: After Parton Law filed Motions to Dismiss based on improper jurisdiction and technical readings of the Fraudulent Transfer Statute, Corporate Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed all three pending cases the day before the Motions were to be heard in court and received nothing from our Client.
H.G. v. B.N.
Date: February, 2016
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Corporate Plaintiff filed suit against Client for alleged violation of non-compete agreement seeking six-figure damages.
Result: Client settled for approximately 3% of what Corporate Plaintiff was seeking, and was released from former non-compete agreement.
V.S. v. Corporate Defendant
Date: May, 2014
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Client, a foreign musician and rock-n-roll enthusiast, was defrauded into purchasing a valuable, iconic Eric Clapton guitar from a local dealer who never actually possessed the guitar.
Result: Full judgment entered in Client's favor while Defendant, who was found to be defrauding many other musicians and collectors, was forced to declare bankruptcy.
In re P.A.C.
Date: July, 2013
Practice Area: Civil Litigation
Description: Corporate Client had previously received unfavorable decision from an Appeals Referee requiring them to make recurring unemployment payments to former employee who had been terminated for misconduct.
Result: Decision of Appeals Referee was completely overturned after Parton Law written appeal to the Employment Security Commission.
DISCLAIMER: The cases mentioned on this site are illustrative of the matters handled by our Firm, and not all case results are provided. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.