This lawsuit is an example of several things.
First, it is using the strategy of picking low-hanging fruit. That is, a case that is easy to make and win. Such a strategy sets up several cases, one building upon the ones you've won before. There will be some inevitable loses, however, the fruit that is gathered will make the harder cases, just that much easier to win. It's also called setting precedent.
Next, this was entirely unexpected by the anti-gun factions, who thought (as did many in the gun-friendly world) that New York City would be the next target. Consider your history. Many, during WWII, thought Calais would be the next great thrust - The Allies hit them at Normandy.
I admit that I had thought the same, that NYC would be the next target. What I forgot, was one of my own earlier admonitions, right after Heller was won, to remember the NAACP struggle in overturning Plessy and bringing a successful Brown v. Board of Education.
In a round-about way, both Heller and McDonald argued that the laws in D.C. and Chicago were not "longstanding prohibition" The Sullivan Act will be much harder to argue. It is a longstanding prohibition, that has withstood several legal challenges. We also know that Scalia will not overturn precedent unless he is cornered and cannot write his way out of it.
Hence the cases in CA that are so important. Winning those cases, winning in D.C. (again), winning in Chicago (again), winning in NC, will all set up precedent to help storm the gates of NYC.
There most likely will be other low-hanging fruit that will be sought, before NYC is really targeted. Therefore, the NC case, Bateman v. Perdue, is as important as all the rest.