3 total
Costs of $5,000 awarded to moving party due to respondents' failure to clarify they were unopposed.
Aviva sought costs for its motion to be added as a statutory third party.
The plaintiff and one defendant claimed they never opposed the motion, but the case conference endorsement explicitly stated they did, leading Aviva to prepare for an opposed motion.
The court found it was reasonable for Aviva to rely on the endorsement and awarded Aviva $5,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, payable equally by the plaintiff and the responding defendant.
Summary judgment granted dismissing claims against defendant driver where co-defendant lost control on snow-covered highway.
The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff passenger's action and the co-defendants' cross-claim against him following a motor vehicle collision.
The moving party argued the co-defendant lost control of his vehicle on a snow-covered highway and crossed into the moving party's lane on an on-ramp.
The co-defendant argued the collision occurred in the highway's right lane during a merge.
Applying the summary judgment framework, the court weighed the evidence, including independent witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, and found the moving party's version of events reliable.
The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the moving party's liability and dismissed the claims against him.
Motion to waive plaintiff's oral and medical discovery due to psychological condition dismissed.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to waive the requirement for the plaintiff to submit to oral and medical discovery, citing severe psychological conditions including PTSD and depression following two motor vehicle accidents.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist indicated discovery would be psychologically detrimental and cause a temporary regression, there was no compelling medical evidence that it would cause permanent psychological damage.
The defendant's right to full discovery was upheld.