The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was duplicative of an existing proceeding (CV-22-544) regarding the same private mortgage agreement.
The court found that the factual issues in this action went to the heart of interpreting the private mortgage contract, creating a clear risk of abuse of process through inconsistent findings.
The court dismissed the action as entirely duplicative and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting the plaintiff could seek to be added as a third party in the parallel proceeding.
