ORDOÑEZ CORDERO v. ORDOÑEZ CORDERO, 2026 NCBC 20

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM COUNTY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
25CV013640-310
JOSE MARIA ORDOÑEZ
CORDERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILTON GEOVANNI ORDOÑEZ
CORDERO,
Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
1. 	This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s putative Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss filed contemporaneously with Defendant’s answer and counterclaims in a
filing captioned as “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Answer, and Counterclaims,”
(ECF No. 10 at 1), and the parties’ case management report, (ECF No. 14, ¶ 2(b)).
2. 	Having considered the motion and applicable law and rules, the Court
hereby DENIES the motion.
Brooks Pierce McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP by Jennifer K. Van
Zant, Agustin Martinez, and Vanessa Canuto for Plaintiff Jose Maria
Ordonez Cordero.
Miller Monroe Holton & Plyer, PLLC by Jason A. Miller and Robert
Blackwell Rader for Defendant Milton Geovanni Ordonez Cordero.
Houston, Judge.
3. 	On 23 January 2026, Defendant filed “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
Answer, and Counterclaims.” (ECF No. 10). The document is a single, consolidated
document, and Defendant’s “motion” is perfunctory and one paragraph long, listed
Ordoñez Cordero v. Ordoñez Cordero, 2026 NCBC 20.

under a heading at the beginning of the first page of the document and reads as
follows:
Under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants
move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. A claim should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) when there is a want of law to support a claim of the sort made,
an absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or the disclosure of
some fact which will necessarily defeat the claim. E.g., Garvin v.
Fayetteville, 102 N.C. App. 121, 123 (1991) (citing Orange County v.
North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, 46 N.C. App. 350, 379 (1980)).
(ECF No. 10 at 1).
4. 	In the parties’ case management report filed on 2 March 2026, Defendant
asserted 	that 	“Defendant 	has 	filed 	a 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint
pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),” listing it among the
“[i]nitial motions” for the Court’s consideration. (ECF No. 14, ¶ 2(b)).
5. 	Defendant’s “motion” was not filed as a standalone or “separate” document,
and Defendant failed to file a separate brief addressing the motion.
6. 	Under Rule 7.2 of the Business Court Rules, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss (i) “must be set out in a separate document” and (ii) “must be accompanied
by a brief.” (ii) BCR 7.2; see also BCR 7.10.
7. 	A purported motion that fails to comply with these requirements—such as
one included perfunctorily at the beginning of a defendant’s answer—may be
disregarded, struck from the record, or summarily denied in the Court’s discretion.
BCR 7.1 (“The Court has discretion to disregard or strike a filing that does not comply
with these rules.”); BCR 7.2 (“The Court has discretion to deny the motion summarily
if a required brief is not filed.”); e.g., Erwin v. Myers Park Ctry. Club, Inc., 2021 N.C.

Super. LEXIS 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2021) (denying a motion to dismiss for
failure to file the motion as a separate document, failure to file an accompanying
brief, and failure otherwise to comply with BCR 7.2); Action Learning Assocs., LLC v.
Kenan-Flagler Bus. Sch. Exec. Educ. LLC, 2025 NCBC LEXIS 127 (N.C. Super. Ct.
Sept. 29, 2025) (summarily denying a motion to amend for failure to comply with BCR
7.2); Lineage Logistics., LLC v. Primus Builders., 2023 NCBC LEXIS 147 (N.C. Super.
Ct. Nov. 27, 2023) (summarily denying a motion to strike for failure to comply with
BCR 7.2).
8. 	Here, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion fails to comply with BCR 7.2, both
because it is not a separate or standalone document and because it lacks an
accompanying brief. BCR 7.2.
9. 	Thus, in its discretion, the Court summarily DENIES the motion.1
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March 2026.
/s/ Matthew T. Houston
Matthew T. Houston
Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases
1 Though the Court may, and often does, “disregard” a noncompliant filing, see BCR 7.1, given
the notation in the case management report regarding Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) filing, the
Court determines in its discretion that it is appropriate in this particular case to promptly
address the filing at an early stage to avoid future confusion among the parties.