Georges Nassrallah

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim for a fourth time.

The defendant physicians opposed several amendments, arguing they introduced new statute-barred claims for wrongful death and spoliation of evidence, added new allegations based on unpleaded facts, and impermissibly withdrew prior admissions.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they merely particularized the existing factual matrix, but struck specific sentences that implicitly advanced a statute-barred wrongful death claim, contained inflammatory language, or pleaded immaterial legal conclusions regarding non-delegable duties.

The applicant franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction to compel respondent franchisees to pay withheld royalty and advertising fees.

The franchisees had commenced a 'royalty strike' to gain leverage in contract negotiations following the franchisor's acquisition of the franchise system out of bankruptcy.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but dismissed the injunction motion because the franchisor failed to prove irreparable harm and failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages.

The court granted the franchisees' cross-motion to appoint an arbitrator and stay the action pursuant to the arbitration clause in the franchise agreements.