A dispute arose in which the Plaintiffs were ordered to correct deficiencies in a thrice Amended Statement of Claim; specifically, they were ordered  to specify which Plaintiffs were advancing what Causes of Action against which Defendants. They attempted to do so in filing a Fourth Amended Statement of Claim. The Defendants alleged the deficiencies remained uncorrected. The Court agreed.

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs were required to comply with Rule 3.25(b) which requires that a Statement of Claim “state the claim and the basis for it.” The Court determined that Rule 3.25 required the Plaintiffs to plead material facts that establish a Cause of Action and that a bald assertion reciting the basic elements of a Cause of Action is insufficient.

The Court determined that two of the claims in the Fourth Amended Claim were bald assertions without any material facts. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged conspiracy and unlawful interference with economic interests without pleading the required elements for each Tort. The Court reviewed Rule 1.2 and the broad authority provided to a Case Management Judge by Rule 4.14. The Court determined that the Fourth Amended Claim was an abuse of process and the Court struck several paragraphs pursuant to Rule 3.68.