A North Carolina appellate court has dismissed an appeal concerning claims of negligence and obstruction of justice brought by a plaintiff against a technology company and its employee after a 2021 pedestrian accident that resulted in severe injuries. The decision clarifies the limits on when such appeals can proceed before all related claims are resolved at trial.
Cynthia W. Green filed the appeal in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, challenging orders entered in Wake County Superior Court on April 1, 2024, and October 16, 2024. The defendants named in the case are Jaimey Alexandra Howard and Align Technology, Inc.
According to court documents, the incident occurred on January 26, 2021, when Howard was commuting home from her employment with Align Technology. While driving northbound on Sherron Road in Durham at approximately 5:25 PM, Howard’s vehicle crossed over the center lane and struck Green, who was walking on the sidewalk as a pedestrian. Green suffered significant injuries requiring extensive hospitalization and ongoing physical therapy.
Green’s initial complaint included claims against Howard for common-law negligence, negligence per se, and obstruction of justice. She also asserted direct claims against Align Technology for common-law negligence and obstruction of justice, as well as vicarious liability for Howard’s conduct—specifically alleging negligent training and supervision by the company.
The legal dispute further involved questions about whether Howard was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the crash by allegedly texting or emailing on her work-issued iPhone. Additionally, Green accused both defendants of obstructing justice during discovery by deleting electronically stored information (ESI). In particular, she claimed that Howard erased relevant data when upgrading her iPhone model on December 8, 2021. As part of discovery proceedings on June 29, 2021, both defendants provided Green with a mobile data log detailing Howard’s cell phone usage from the date of the accident.
On January 11, 2024, Green filed her initial complaint outlining eight claims against both defendants. Both parties responded with motions to strike most portions of this complaint; Align Technology also moved to dismiss certain claims in the alternative. On April 1, 2024, the trial court granted parts of these motions to strike references to unrelated litigation and personal information about Howard but instructed Green to submit a more concise amended complaint. She complied with this order on April 30, reiterating three claims against Howard and five against Align Technology.
Subsequently, both defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in late June 2024. On October 16, the trial court denied Howard’s motion but granted Align Technology’s motion to dismiss without prejudice regarding its own derivative-negligence and obstruction claims. Green appealed these decisions along with earlier orders related to striking portions of her original complaint.
In its opinion filed April 15, 2026 (No. COA25-498), the appellate court analyzed whether it had jurisdiction over these appeals or if they were interlocutory—that is, not constituting final judgments eligible for immediate review unless certain conditions are met under North Carolina law. The court found that neither order affected substantial rights nor posed a risk of inconsistent verdicts that would justify immediate appellate review before all related issues were resolved at trial.
The opinion discusses legal precedents concerning derivative liability—where an employer’s responsibility depends entirely on an employee being found liable—and concludes that such scenarios do not typically create grounds for interlocutory appeal absent other factors.
As relief from the courts below had not yet reached final judgment status regarding all parties or issues involved—particularly since some claims remain pending against defendant Howard—the appellate panel dismissed Green’s appeal as premature.
Representing Cynthia W. Green was Justin R. Apple from Hatch, Little & Bunn LLP; representing Jaimey A. Howard were Kara V. Bordman and Kenneth B. Rotenstreich from Teague, Rotenstreich, Stanaland, Fox & Holt PLLC; representing Align Technology was Jeffrey B. Kuykendal from McAngus Goudelock & Courie PLLC. The orders were entered by Judge Vinston M. Rozier Jr., with Chief Judge Dillon and Judge Hampson concurring in this decision under case number COA25-498.
Source: COA25498_Green_v_Howard_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
