379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994)). Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal as interlocutory is granted with respect to defendants’ appeal from the denial of their Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants’ appeal from denial of Rule 12(b)(6) motion Our Court in Anderson v. Town of Andrews held that an appeal from the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity affects a substantial right and is therefore immediately appealable. Anderson v. Town of Andrews, 127 N.C. App. 599, 601, 492 S.E.2d 385, 386 (1997) (citing EEE-ZZZ Lay Drain Co. v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 108 N.C. App. 24, 27, 422 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 489 S.E.2d 880 (1997)) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss
holding that denial of counsel in section 1983 action is not immediately appealable holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right holding that a denial of a 12b2 motion for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable holding if immunity is raised as a basis in the motion for summary adjudication a substantial right is affected and the denial is immediately appealable