4 total
Plaintiffs awarded $10,000 in costs for defamation action despite damages falling within Small Claims limit.
Following a summary judgment awarding modest damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought costs of $35,870.58.
The defendants argued no costs should be awarded under Rule 57.05 because the recovery was within the Small Claims Court limit.
The court held that defamation actions involve more than monetary damages and declined to deprive the plaintiffs of costs, particularly given their prior offers to settle.
Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiffs $10,000 in costs.
Costs of dismissed injunction motion awarded to defendants on a partial indemnity scale.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.
The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.
The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.
The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.
Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in a defamation action over social media posts, awarding modest damages.
This is a defamation action where the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for negative remarks published on social media.
The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants' statements were defamatory and that their pleaded defenses of truth and fair comment could not succeed.
Damages were assessed in a modest amount for the corporate and individual plaintiffs, and a request for a permanent injunction was denied.
Interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition agreement denied as plaintiff failed to show strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.
The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new competing businesses from soliciting its customers.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, as the non-competition agreements were either expired or likely unenforceable.
Furthermore, the court found no irreparable harm, concluding that damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial.
