3 total
Substantial indemnity costs denied as unproven bias allegations were not made recklessly without evidentiary foundation.
Following a 38-day trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs of over $2.2 million on a partial indemnity basis, but argued for substantial indemnity costs from the date the plaintiff amended its pleadings to allege bias and conspiracy.
The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's allegations were not made recklessly or without evidentiary foundation.
The court upheld the defendant's significant e-discovery disbursements as reasonable but ordered the defendant to produce redacted dockets for the plaintiff's review before finalizing the fee award.
Action for breach of RFP process dismissed; plaintiff properly disqualified for breaching communication and confidentiality rules.
The plaintiff, a construction company, sued the defendant municipality after being disqualified from a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for a City Hall expansion.
The plaintiff alleged that the municipality acted in bad faith and with bias when it disqualified the plaintiff for refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement and for communicating directly with City Council.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff had breached the clear terms of the RFP and that the municipality's decision to disqualify the plaintiff was fair, made in good faith, and based on the advice of an independent fairness advisor.
The court also held that even if the municipality had breached the RFP, the plaintiff would only be entitled to reliance damages, not expectation damages for lost profits.
An insolvent shell company pursuing complex commercial litigation on behalf of creditors was ordered to post $1.6 million in security for costs.
The plaintiff, a shell company representing substantial commercial creditors, conceded it lacked sufficient assets to cover the defendants' costs if unsuccessful in three complex commercial actions seeking over $150 million in damages.
The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate impecuniosity.
The defendants sought over $10 million in security for costs.
The court, finding the merits of the underlying claims neutral for the purpose of the motion, determined it was fair and just for the plaintiff to post security.
An initial aggregate sum of $1.6 million was ordered to be paid into court, staged across the three actions, with further amounts to be determined later.