while she resided in Georgia and [he] resided in North Carolina” and that Ms. Gibson “sent e-mail messages to [him] in North Carolina from the state of Georgia.” By order entered 30 March 2005, the trial court denied Ms. Gibson’s motion to dismiss. From this order Ms. Gibson appeals. Preliminarily, we note that this appeal, while interlocutory, is properly before us because motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction axe statutorily deemed to be immediately appealable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § l-277(b) (2005) (“Any interested party shall have the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant[.]”); Retail Investors, Inc. v. Henzlik Inv. Co., 113 N.C. App. 549, 552, 439 S.E.2d 196, 198 (1994) (<HOLDING>). We further note that, “The standard of review
holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim holding that a denial of a 12b2 motion for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable holding that court clerk had right to take immediate appeal of ruling denying motion to dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity holding that immediate right to appeal lies from denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable