Customer Nonsolicitation Claim Survives as NCBC Dismisses Vague Unfair Competition Allegations

In Best Logistics Grp., Inc. v. Bravo, 2026 NCBC 46, the North Carolina Business Court granted in part and denied in part a partial motion to dismiss in a dispute between a company and two of its former employees who left to join a competitor. The Court dismissed claims arising from nonsolicitation of employees, tortious interference, and N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 because they were conclusory, but it allowed a claim of nonsolicitation of customers to proceed for further development.

The Court’s order indicates that restrictive covenants and unfair competition claims must be pled with factual specificity. At the same time, challenges to the enforceability of a customer nonsolicitation claim may not always be resolved at the pleading stage.

THE FACTS AND CLAIMS

Best Logistics Group, Inc. and Best Services, Inc. (together, “Best Logistics”) are related companies in the transportation industry. They sued two former employees, Christian Neira Bravo and Barry Carson, after they resigned in October 2025 to join a competitor. According to Best Logistics, Bravo and Carson used trade secrets and confidential information to help their new employer compete unfairly.

Best Logistics asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of restrictive covenants, tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts, unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, and a standalone cause of action for injunctive relief.

Bravo and Carson moved to dismiss some of the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). During briefing, Best Logistics voluntarily dismissed its breach-of-contract claim against Carson, leaving the Court to decide whether the remaining challenged claims were adequately pled.

EMPLOYEE NONSOLICITATION CLAIM DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

Best Logistics alleged that Bravo breached his employment agreement by soliciting Best Logistics employees. Nonetheless, the Court found the allegations insufficient to state a claim.

Although the amended complaint alleged that Carson successfully solicited six employees to leave Best Logistics, it did not allege comparable facts about Bravo. Nor did the complaint explain why Carson’s alleged conduct should be attributed to Bravo. The only allegation that arguably implicated Bravo grouped both Defendants together without identifying what Bravo himself allegedly did. Thus, the Court dismissed the employee nonsolicitation claim against Bravo with prejudice. 

The Court’s opinion indicates that when pleading a breach of a nonsolicitation provision, the plaintiff should identify who solicited whom and through which specific acts. Group pleading against multiple former employees may not survive when the claim depends on each defendant’s individual conduct.

CUSTOMER NONSOLICITATION CLAIM SURVIVED

Best Logistics also alleged that Bravo breached a customer nonsolicitation restriction. Bravo argued that this claim should be dismissed because the customer nonsolicitation clause was facially overbroad and, thus, unenforceable.

The Court declined to resolve this issue at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Court held that the issue was better suited for summary judgment because restrictive-covenant enforceability often requires evidence about the reasonableness of the restriction.

This indicates that a deficiently pled breach-of-contract claim may be dismissed early. But when the dispute is whether a customer restriction is reasonable in scope, a court may require a more developed factual record before ruling.

TORTIOUS-INTERFERENCE CLAIMS DISMISSED

The Court also dismissed Best Logistics’ claims for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage. Tortious interference with a contract requires the defendant to induce a third party “not to perform” under an existing contract with the plaintiff, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage requires the defendant to induce a third party “not to enter into a contract with” the plaintiff when the contract would have resulted otherwise.

Best Logistics did not satisfy either standard. The complaint did not allege that any customer failed to perform an existing contract, nor did it identify any specific prospective contract that would have materialized absent interference by Bravo or Carson. The Court therefore dismissed both tortious-interference claims with prejudice.

With this dismissal, the Court implied that a plaintiff cannot merely allege lost business opportunities in general terms. It must connect the defendant’s conduct to identifiable contracts, customers, or prospective deals.

SECTION 75-1.1 CLAIM NARROWED

Best Logistics also brought a claim under North Carolina’s unfair or deceptive trade practices statute, N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. The Court treated that claim as a catch-all theory based on Best Logistics’ other allegations.

Because several underlying claims were dismissed, those dismissed claims could not support the § 75-1.1 claim. The Court also rejected as conclusory Best Logistics’ allegation that Bravo and Carson made false representations of material fact to customers.

But the § 75-1.1 claim was not dismissed entirely. The defendants conceded that the claim could proceed to the extent it was based on alleged trade-secret misappropriation. Moreover, the Court also allowed the claim to proceed to the extent it was based on the surviving customer nonsolicitation claim against Bravo.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS A REMEDY, NOT A STANDALONE CLAIM

Finally, the Court dismissed Best Logistics’ standalone claim for injunctive relief.

The Court stated that injunctions are remedies, not independent causes of action. A party may seek injunctive relief if it has a viable underlying claim and satisfies the requirements for that remedy, but it cannot plead “injunctive relief” as a separate claim.

The dismissal was without prejudice to Best Logistics’ ability to seek injunctive relief at a later time.

WHY THIS DECISION MATTERS

For employers, the decision reinforces the importance of pleading unfair competition claims with precision. Courts are receptive to claims involving alleged trade-secret misappropriation or customer solicitation, but factual gaps or insufficiencies may lead to dismissal.  

For former employees, the decision indicates that not every restrictive-covenant or business-tort claim will survive merely because the employee joined a competitor. Plaintiffs must allege concrete facts showing how each defendant personally violated a duty or caused harm.

For litigators, the opinion is useful because it separates claims that fail for lack of factual allegations from claims that require further factual development.

CONCLUSION

Best Logistics Grp., Inc. v. Bravo is a practical pleading decision for North Carolina trade-secret, restrictive covenant, and unfair-competition litigation. The Business Court allowed claims tied to alleged trade-secret misappropriation and customer nonsolicitation to proceed, but dismissed claims based on vague allegations of employee solicitation, customer interference, and standalone injunctive relief.

The broader message is clear: in employment-competition disputes, the Business Court will allow plausible claims to move forward, but it will not credit conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts.

The Firm is grateful to its summer clerk, Iz Estrada Romero, for his contributions to this article