Local governments often find themselves being sued over injuries allegedly caused by their officials or employees. Such lawsuits sometimes include both tort claims and state constitutional claims premised on the same set of facts. For example, a plaintiff who believes she was wrongly arrested during a public protest might sue a city for false imprisonment and for violating her right to assemble under Article I, Section 12 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Like defendants in other cases, a local government may have a particular claim or an entire lawsuit dismissed at the outset of litigation if the plaintiff’s factual allegations, taken as true, do not state a valid legal claim. (The law generally requires a court to accept a plaintiff’s factual allegations as true when reviewing a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff hasn’t yet had the chance to compel the production of evidence favorable to his claims.) Additionally, a local government may have a claim under the North Carolina Constitution dismissed if adequate relief is available to the plaintiff through a tort claim. The existence of an adequate alternative remedy (“AAR”) results in the dismissal of a state constitutional claim, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s factual allegations describe a constitutional violation.
The recent opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill, ____ N.C. App. ____ (May 7, 2013), limits the authority of trial courts to dismiss state constitutional claims based on the availability of an AAR. A cursory review of the opinion could also leave the impression that, even when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to allege a violation of the North Carolina Constitution, a trial court may not dismiss a state constitutional claim so long as the existence of an AAR is disputed. As explained below, this is a misreading of Bigelow. Read more »
