Key Points:
-
Motion Overview:
- Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim.
- Initial submission issues included lack of a proper blacklined version.
-
Proceedings:
- Court allowed claims against some companies but denied others.
- Plaintiffs inappropriately submitted further arguments via email.
- The amended claim had incomplete blacklining and inappropriate commentary.
-
Contentions:
- Defendants challenged specific footnotes and paragraphs, arguing they contained evidence and arguments rather than material facts.
- Plaintiffs defended some inclusions, citing rule 25.06(8) for pleading fraud.
-
Judge’s Findings:
- Ordered removal of footnotes 8, 46, 78, 81, 82, 83, and 86.
- Ordered removal of paragraphs 20-22, 23-24, 25, 27 (partially), 29 (partially), 64, 96, 104(c) (partially), 108 (partially), 109, 111 (partially), 117, 118, 123-129.
-
Costs:
- Plaintiffs failed to timely submit a bill of costs, impacting their cost entitlement.
- Defendants awarded $64,926.93 in costs, payable by plaintiffs within 30 days.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the amended claim with significant revisions, ensuring it adhered to procedural rules by focusing on material facts without including evidence or arguments. Costs were awarded to the defendants due to their success in challenging the inappropriate content.
