MARTINEZ MARTINEZ v. LOPEZ (2026)

Defendants Albert and Joy Lopez appeal from the trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss. Defendant Iglesia Bautista Puerta Abierta filed a separate appeal, which it withdrew by consent motion granted by this Court on 10 December 2025. We dismiss the Lopezes’ appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The Lopezes argue the trial court erred in denying their motions to dismiss Adela Arnulfo-Plata's claims as barred compulsory counterclaims under Rule 13(a) and Estafany Martinez-Martinez's claims as time-barred under the statute of limitations. To obtain interlocutory review, defendants must demonstrate the denial affects a substantial right. They cannot do so.

First, the compulsory counterclaim argument fails. To establish a substantial right, the Lopezes must show that allowing the claims to proceed would risk inconsistent verdicts. See Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 608 (1982). They cannot. The prior lawsuit (23-CVS-3121) involved different parties and claims—assault, battery, and false imprisonment. This case involves negligence, negligent supervision, civil conspiracy, ratification, and punitive damages. “The mere fact that claims arise from a single event, transaction, or occurrence does not, without more, necessitate a conclusion that inconsistent verdicts may occur unless all of the affected claims are considered in a single proceeding.” Hamilton v. Mortg. Info. Servs., 212 N.C. App. 73, 73 (2011).

Second, the statute of limitations argument fails. Denial of a statute of limitations defense does not affect a substantial right and is not immediately appealable. Thompson v. Norfolk & S. Ry., 140 N.C. App. 115, 121 (2000). Moreover, the Lopezes waived this defense by failing to plead it in their answer. See Carcano v. JBSS, LLC, 291 N.C. App. 522, 530 (2023).

The Lopezes have not established that immediate review is warranted. This Court lacks jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

GORE, Judge.

Judges ZACHARY and COLLINS concur.