The plaintiff in a lawsuit who claims her sisters forced her out of the family business filed a motion in Alamance County superior court on Tuesday, asking a judge to enter a preliminary injunction that would stop her sisters, and former business partners, from making spurious statements about her to other parties and from engaging in any future business transactions that might benefit them personally.
Emma Nadolski – who owns one-third of Carolina Eye Prosthetics at 420 Maple Avenue, Burlington – filed the suit earlier this year against the company, as well as Anna Jefferson and Clare Martin, whom she identifies as her sisters and part-owners of the business. Nadolski had been married to former Alamance County district attorney Patrick Nadolski, who left the area prior to their divorce in 2021.
In her suit, Nadolski, a board-certified ocularist, claimed that Jefferson and Martin had police escort her out of the company office in October 2023 and have not allowed her to return to work since.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
Nadolski also alleges her sisters tried to force her to sign a document, “Terms of Sabbatical Leave” – against her will – which stated that her distributions as part-owner of Carolina Eye Prosthetics would end after October 31, 2023, “something not permitted by North Carolina law so long as [the] plaintiff remained a shareholder in the company,” based on Nadolski’s amended motion for a preliminary injunction that was filed in superior court on Tuesday.
The “Terms of Sabbatical Leave” – which Nadolski says she did not sign – also stated “that she could not work in the field of prosthetics while on leave despite having no restrictions on her right to work anywhere,” the latest court filing asserts. Neither the suit filed earlier this year nor the amended motion for an injunction reveals any of the circumstances that may have preceded the alleged actions by Nadolski’s sisters to force her out of the family business.
Both Nadolski’s suit and her subsequent motion for a preliminary injunction allege that her sisters are misusing company assets, through such acts as payment of “exorbitant rent” for the office to a separate company owned by Jefferson and the use of company funds for personal expenses. “Moreover, defendants Martin and Jefferson have threatened to shut the company down and take all the patients, a clear breach of their fiduciary duty…were it to occur,” the motion for the injunction states. The plaintiff contends that, in the meantime, the defendants have tried to force her to sell her interest in the company at far less than its value.
Additionally, Nadolski claims that her sisters have made false statements to multiple individuals, including patients of Carolina Eye Prosthetics, which she says are intended to damage her professionally and personally.
For example, the motion for a preliminary injunction alleges that Jefferson told a patient late last year that a prosthetic eye that Nadolski had made wasn’t right and that she (Jefferson) would have to correct it. In January 2024, Jefferson allegedly told a patient “it was illegal” for Nadolski to contact the patient.
In February 2024, one of the defendants (whose name is unspecified) allegedly told another patient that Nadolski had walked out of the company “and they didn’t know where she had gone.”
Nadolski also alleges that, twice in 2024, Jefferson incorrectly informed two patients that an prosthetic eye that Nadolski “wasn’t right” that Jefferson would have to correct it, according to the latest court filing.
In August 2024, Jefferson – the plaintiff’s sister and a 51 percent interest shareholder in Carolina Eye – allegedly told yet another patient (identified in the court file as “Patient E”) that “Emma started sleeping with the accountant” and “quit and just walked out.”
Nadolski is now asking a superior court judge to grant her preliminary injunction to order the defendants to file a response to her earlier motion for discovery.
The defendants initially filed a motion for an extension of the deadline to respond on February 7, 2024; but they have not filed a response to the suit, or to any of Nadolski’s subsequent motions, based on Alamance County civil superior court files.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel the defendants to proceed with the discovery process for the suit on June 26, 2024, according to the court file.
On Tuesday, Nadolski’s attorney also filed the amended motion for a preliminary injunction, not only to force the defendants to “comply with their discovery and statutory obligations” but also to prevent them from making any additional “false or derogatory statements” about Nadolski and to block any future financial transactions from which they might personally benefit.
In her suit, which remains pending in superior court, Nadolski has asked for a judge to enter an order dissolving the company and liquidating its assets; and to appoint a receiver to wind down or manage the affairs of the company.
Nadolski is no longer receiving the dividends she previously had as a partial owner of the company, based on her motion for a preliminary injunction.
A hearing on Nadolski’s motions for a preliminary injunction and to compel discovery is currently scheduled for next month in Alamance County civil superior court.
The plaintiff is being represented by the Buckmiller, Boyette & Frost law firm in Raleigh.
