The defendants moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained by the plaintiffs without notice.
The dispute involved a family hardware business, with the plaintiff son claiming his late father promised him the business and a 50% interest in the land.
The court found that the plaintiffs egregiously breached their duty under Rule 39.01(6) to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts when obtaining the ex parte order.
The plaintiffs omitted key facts about negotiations, the plaintiff's departure to start a competing business, and relied on inadmissible double hearsay regarding a purported sale of the property.
The court set aside the CPL and declined to maintain it under the Dhunna factors, concluding this was primarily a damages case.
Costs of $69,000 were awarded to the defendants.
