In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of initiating or bringing lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal rewards, have little or no chance of winning. This term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal rewards. While everyday language, a person may terminate a lawsuit to be reckless if he personally finds unreasonable claims, in the use of "reckless litigation" law consisting of a claim or defense presented where the party (or party legal adviser) has reason to know that the claim or defense is in fact insufficient or futile. The fact that claims are missing does not mean that it is reckless.
Reckless litigation may be based on absurd legal theory, perhaps involving superabundance or repetition of additional movements or demands, may be uncivilized or harassing to court, or may claim an extreme resolution. Claims or advocates may be reckless because they do not have an underlying justification, or because they are not presented with arguments for reasonable extension or legal interpretation. Claims can be considered reckless as the existing law expressly prohibits such claims, such as the so-called Good Samaritan law.
In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state regulations requires a lawyer to conduct due diligence investigations on a factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdiction differs on whether a claim or defense can be reckless if the lawyer acts in good faith. Because such defenses or claims waste time, resources and legal costs of the court and others, sanctions may be imposed by a court of law or a lawyer who presents a frivolous defense or claim. Law firms may also be subject to sanctions, or even be subjected to humiliation.
Video Frivolous litigation
Federal law and court rules punish frivolous litigation
In the United States Tax Court, reckless arguments can result in penalties of up to $ 25,000 under 26 U.S.C.Ã, Ã,§ 6673 (a) (1) . Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the US Supreme Court and US Court of Appeals may impose penalties in which the taxpayer's appeal on the US Tax Court's decision "is retained primarily for delays" or where "the taxpayer's position in the attraction is frivolous or unfounded. "A common example, as shown below, is an argument based on taxpayer claims.
In a non-criminal case in the US District Court, a lawyer (or a litigating lawyer) applying for a plea, written gesture or other paper to a court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to state that, to the best of presenter's knowledge and beliefs, legal contradictions "are guaranteed by existing law or by unwarranted arguments for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new laws". Civil penalties for breach of this rule may in some cases be liable to plaintiffs or lawyers under Rule 11.
In one case, the Seventh Circuit Court issued an order to give such a lawyer "14 days to show the cause why he should not be fined $ 10,000 for his reckless argument". A similar rule punishes frivolous litigation in effect at the US Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.
The US Congress has established section 1912 of Title 28 of the US. stating that in the US Supreme Court and in the US Court of Appeals where the litigation of the losing party has caused damage to the applicable party, the court may impose the requirement that the losing party pay the winner for the damage.
Citizens representing themselves ( in forma pauperis and pro se ) sometimes make frivolous arguments because of their limited knowledge of laws and procedures. The special tendency of prisoners to bring unfounded lawsuits resulted in the passage of the 1995 Law of Litigation Reform Act, which restricted the detainees' ability to take action without payment.
Maps Frivolous litigation
Court treatment of haphazard arguments
An example of Court treatment of frivolous arguments is found in the case of Crain v. Commissioner , 737 F.2d 1417 (1984), of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
-
- Glenn Crain appealed against the dismissal of the Tax Court petition challenging the agency's constitutional authority and opposing the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy a tax on its earnings. Crain insists that he is "not subject to state jurisdiction, taxation, or regulation," that "the Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" has no authority to exercise the judicial powers of the United States, that the Tax Court unconstitutionally seeks to Train the power of Article III, and jurisdiction over that person has never been proven convincingly.
-
- We feel there is no need to refute this argument with somber excuses and excessive quotations from precedents; to do so may indicate that these arguments have some surpluses that can be colored. The constitutionality of our income tax system - including the role played in the system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court - has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain's fake "petition" and the judgment judgment imposed by the Tax Court for launching a reckless trial. 26 U.S.C.Ã,§§ 6673.
-
- The government asked us to rate a penalty against Crain for bringing this reckless appeal, as allowed by the Fed. R. App. P. 38. In Parker v. CIR, 724 F. 2d 469, 472 (5th Cir 1984), we voiced "a warning note to those who will continue to argue against income taxes that have been postponed for years.Sanctions in Rule 38 will be called as responsiveness to an entirely reckless attraction. "
-
- We are sensitive to the need for courts to remain open to all those seeking in good faith to seek legal protection. Poor appeal is not always - or often - reckless. However, we are under no obligation to suffer in the silence of unfounded submissions, unsupported appeals that do not present a colorable error and are designed only to delay, obstruct, or disable any court operation or other governmental authority. Crain's current appeal is this sort of thing. This is a jumble of unsupported statements, irrelevant words, and legalistic nonsense. The government should not have to bother to respond to such false arguments, or this court for the problem of "judging" this helpless appeal.
-
- Thus, we granted the government's request. The United States will recover from the comparison Crain twice the cost of this appeal. In addition, we rate Crain the damage award of $ 2000 to support the United States entitled to receive it.
Impact on lawyer filing
Filing a claim that is ultimately deemed reckless can be very damaging to the lawyer who filed it. Attorney Daniel Evans writes:
[W] A judge calls a "silly" or "frivolous" argument, that's the worst thing a judge can say. This means that the person arguing with the position has absolutely no idea what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. That does not mean that the case is not well judged, or the judge only decides for the other party, it means that there is no other party. The argument is absolute, positive, incompetent . The judge did not tell you that you were "wrong." The judge informs you that you are insane.
Washington v. Alaimo
In Washington v. Alaimo courts enroll over seventy-five "reckless" acts (requests for courts to issue orders), all of which require the attention of the Court, including the following:
- "Motion to Behoove Inquisition"
- "Motion for Judex Delegatus"
- "Motion for Kid Recovery"
- "Motion for Deinstitutionalization"
- "Motion for Publicity"
- "Motion to Vacate Jurisdiction"
- "Motion for Cesset procession"
- "Motion for Nunc pro tunc"
- "Motion for Psychoanalysis"
- "Motion to Alaimo Reverend"
- "Motion to Leave Citizenship"
- "Motion to Get Rid of Alex Hodgson's Body"
- "Motion to Invoke and Execute Rule 15 - Retroactive Note: The End of School Day"
- "Motion for Skin Change Operations"
- "Motion for Layered Food Services"
- "Motion for Kissing My Butt"
Washington, an inmate from Georgia, was ultimately prohibited from prosecuting any lawsuit or movement in any district court unless he first placed a $ 1,500 defamatory bond. In order to be considered reckless, the plaintiffs' arguments must go beyond limits.
Pearson v. Chung
In Pearson v. Chung, Roy Pearson, a Washington judge, D.C., sued the dry cleaning business for $ 67 million for allegedly missing a pair of his pants. This case has been cited as an example of reckless litigation. According to Pearson, the dry cleaner lost his pants (which he brought for a change of $ 10.50) and refused his request for a big refund. Pearson believes that the sign that says "Satisfaction Guaranteed" in the shop window officially gave him a refund for the cost of his pants, an estimated $ 1,000. The $ 54 million total also includes $ 2.0 million in "mental stress" and $ 15,000 that he estimates is the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another dry laundry. The court finally ruled against Pearson, whose judge was later renewed due to this case and several other acts he filed during his divorce, which was found to indicate a lack of "judicial justice." Jonathan Lee Riches
In 2010, federal prosecutors asked the judge to help them stop Jonathan Lee Riches from filing another lawsuit, arguing that his filing was often frivolous.
Gloria Dawn Ironbox
In July 2013, Ontario's Human Rights Court dismissed a complaint filed by a man posing as Gloria Dawn Ironbox, a fictional feminist lawyer in the Family Guy series. Plaintiff alleges that the marketing scheme by A & amp; W Restaurant is "heteronormatif", "phallocentric" and promotes "hegemony of passage." Cite distress and alienation of the lack of "LGBT" representation in the naming convention A & amp; W, he demanded $ 50,000 in damages due to dignity and self-esteem injuries and orders that require A & amp; W to adopt a naming convention that includes non-family -traditional. One of the products demanded by the prosecution is "Pillow Biter", described by the plaintiff as "a large and dark piece of meat stuffed strongly between two, white bread, clenched."
Sirgiorgio Sanford Clardy
In January 2014, Sirgiorgio Sanford Clardy, serving a 100-year jail term for beating a prostitute and his client, has filed a "$ 100 million lawsuit against Nike", which Clardy claims that the shoe manufacturer is partly responsible. Clardy said that "Nike should put a label on Jordan shoes that warn consumers that they can be used as a dangerous weapon.He wore a pair when he repeatedly stepped on the face of a john who was trying to leave the Portland hotel without paying.Hard Clardy in June 2012. According to The Oregonian, this lawsuit has received "great attention throughout the nation and the world."
Romine v. Stanton
In March 2016, James Romine, an independent video game developer who founded Digital Homicide Studios sued popular video game critic Jim Sterling (James Stanton) for criticizing the game published under his studio name. Seeking $ 10 million for compensation for "attacks, liabilities, and libel" to Romine's business. He claims that Stanton's coverage of his studio game The Slaughtering Grounds as "The Contender's 2014 Worst Game" is not protected by fair use law because he does not believe it is a "fair" critique. An additional $ 18 million lawsuit was filed against 100 users on the Steam game platform for criticizing their games and business practices, which he has interpreted as "harassment". The judge issued a court order against Valve Corporation to reveal the identity of the 100 users. This resulted in Valve removing all published games from Digital Homicide Studios. It also does not help that Romine filed suit as an individual and not as a corporation, and that such criticism is protected under the right to free speech. This case was dismissed with prejudice in February 2017. This case is also an example of abuse of DMCA removal requests on YouTube.
See also
Note
External links
- Lawsuit.no: Crunch case file
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments