C. Sparling

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motions for a Certificate of Pending Litigation and for security pending trial, the defendants sought their costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument to defer costs to the trial judge, finding no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $18,000 for the CPL motion and $11,000 for the security motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a draft discovery plan in an action for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation arising from a construction project.

The defendants sought to include deadlines for Scott Schedules and a specific provision regarding documentary discovery for their counterclaim.

The court approved the discovery plan with adjusted deadlines, declined to include a deadline for Scott Schedules as they had already been served, and added a general provision for documentary discovery relating to all pleadings.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for alternative security, requesting that the proceeds of the sale of a property be paid into court pending the disposition of the action, after her motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was dismissed.

The plaintiff relied on section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no statutory authority to order security where a CPL had not been granted, and concluding that the plaintiff did not meet the 'specific fund' threshold under Rule 45.02 because she was advancing a claim for damages rather than a legal right to the specific fund.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding a property she had agreed to purchase from the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, claiming a constructive trust over the property.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a triable issue regarding a constructive trust, it was not just and equitable to grant the CPL because the property was not unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and both parties wished for the property to be sold.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking alternative security.