Maneetpal Khera

Two sets of respondents brought motions under Rule 37.14 to set aside an order made in January 2025 striking their pleadings and granting significant relief to the applicant.

The respondents' former lawyer had failed to advise them of the motion leading to the order, lied about bringing a motion to set it aside, fabricated a court hearing and correspondence with judicial officials, and then disappeared from the proceedings.

The court found one set of respondents (the Foulidis respondents) met the test for setting aside the order, having moved forthwith once they discovered the deception, while the other set (the Conforti respondents) did not meet the forthwith requirement due to a six-month delay after retaining new counsel.

However, the court set aside the order for all respondents because maintaining it against only one set would create unmanageable procedural disparity, and directed a case conference to determine which enforcement steps should remain in place.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment on two loans advanced to the corporate defendant restaurant and against the individual defendant on a personal guarantee and collateral mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment in full.

The corporate defendant had no genuine issue for trial regarding two loans (a line of credit and a $100,000 loan) and a security agreement.

The individual defendant failed to raise triable issues regarding the guarantee and mortgage, including claims of undue influence, non est factum, accommodation surety status, and material alteration of the guarantee.

The court awarded judgment against the corporate defendant for the full amounts outstanding and against the individual defendant for the maximum guaranteed amount of $30,000, along with an order for possession of the mortgaged property.