Frivolous litigation

In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. The term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal merit. While colloquially, a person may term a law suit to be frivolous if he or she personally finds a claim to be absurd, in legal usage "frivolous litigation" consists of a claim or defense that is presented where the party (or the party's legal counsel) had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile.[citation needed] The fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it was frivolous.

Frivolous litigation may be based on absurd legal theories, may involve a superabundance or repetition of motions or additional suits, may be uncivil or harassing to the court, or may claim extreme remedies. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law. A claim may be deemed frivolous because existing laws unequivocally prohibit such a claim, such as a so-called Good Samaritan law.

In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.


Statutes and rules of court penalizing frivolous litigation

In the United States Tax Court, frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 under 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1). Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals may impose penalties where the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."[1]

In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".[2] Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.[3] In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[4] A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.[5]

Congress has enacted section 1912 of title 28 of the United States Code providing that in the United States Supreme Court and in the various courts of appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages.[6]

Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis and pro se) sometimes make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners to bring baseless lawsuits led to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions without payment.[citation needed]

Court treatment of frivolous arguments

An example of a Court's treatment of frivolous arguments is found in the case of Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (1984), from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.
We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain's spurious "petition" and the assessment of a penalty imposed by the Tax Court for instituting a frivolous proceeding. 26 U.S.C. § 6673.
The government asks us to assess penalties against Crain for bringing this frivolous appeal, as is authorized by Fed. R. App. P. 38. In Parker v. C. I. R., 724 F. 2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984), we sounded "a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years. The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal."
We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always—or often—frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of "adjudicating" this meritless appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the government's request. The United States shall recover from appellant Crain twice its cost of this appeal. Additionally, we assess against Crain a damage award of $2000 in favor of the appellee United States.[7]

Impact upon filing attorney

Filing a claim that is ultimately deemed frivolous can be highly damaging to the attorney so filing. Attorney Daniel Evans writes:

[W]hen a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.[8]

Examples of frivolous court filings

In Washington v. Alaimo[9] the court listed more than seventy five frivolous "motions" (a request for a court to issue an order), all of which required the attention of the Court, including the following:

  • "Motion to Behoove an Inquisition"
  • "Motion for Judex Delegatus"
  • "Motion for Restoration of Sanity"
  • "Motion for Deinstitutionalization"
  • "Motion for Publicity"
  • "Motion to Vacate Jurisdiction"
  • "Motion for Cesset pro Cessus"
  • "Motion for Nunc pro tunc"
  • "Motion for Psychoanalysis"
  • "Motion to Impeach Judge Alaimo"
  • "Motion to Renounce Citizenship"
  • "Motion to Exhume Body of Alex Hodgson"
  • "Motion to Invoke and Execute Rule 15—Retroactive Note: The Court's School Days are Over"
  • "Motion for Skin Change Operation"
  • "Motion for Catered Food Services"

Washington, an inmate from Georgia, was eventually prohibited from filing any future lawsuits or motions in any district court unless he first posted a contempt bond of $1,500. To be deemed frivolous, a litigant's arguments must strike beyond the pale.[10]

Pearson v. Chung, the case of a Washington, D.C. judge, Roy Pearson, who sued a dry cleaning business for $67 million (later lowered to $54 million), has been cited[11] as an example of frivolous litigation. According to Pearson, the dry cleaners lost his pants (which he brought in for a $10.50 alteration) and refused his demands for a large refund. Pearson believed that a 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign in the window of the shop legally entitled him to a refund for the cost of the pants, estimated at $1,000. The $54 million total also included $2 million in "mental distress" and $15,000 which he estimated to be the cost of renting a car every weekend to go to another dry cleaners.[12]

In 2010, US federal prosecutors asked a judge to help them stop Jonathan Lee Riches from filing any more lawsuits, arguing that his frequent filings were frivolous.[13]

See also


  1. ^ See paragraph (4) of subsection (c) of 26 U.S.C. § 7482.
  2. ^ Rule 11(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  3. ^ Rule 11(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  4. ^ United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,806 (7th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1280, 128 S.Ct. 1721 (2008).
  5. ^ Rule 9011(b)(2) and Rule 9011(c), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
  6. ^ See 28 U.S.C. § 1912.
  7. ^ Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9721 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
  8. ^ Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ, at
  9. ^ 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996).
  10. ^ Weblogger Chris Pearson quotes more extensively from Washington v. Alaimo in "Motion to Kiss My Ass". 13 December 2005. 
  11. ^ "The Great American Pants Suit". Wall Street Journal. June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-21. "It's nice to see that even the organized plaintiffs bar piously deplores Mr. Pearson's abuse of the law. It would be even nicer if they agreed to stop opposing reforms that would give the Chungs of the world a fighting chance the next time around." 
  12. ^ Fisher, Marc (14 June 2007). "Wearing Down the Judicial System With a Pair of Pants". The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Company): p. B01. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2008-09-10. 
  13. ^ "Feds seek to halt inmate's lawsuits". Boton Herald. 14 September 2010. Retrieved 2011-10-27. 

External links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • litigation — I noun action, case, cause, controversy, disputation, dispute, judicial contest, lawsuit, legal action, legal battle, legal contest, legal dispute, legal matter, legal proceeding, legal remedy, matter, proceeding, suit, suit at law, trial,… …   Law dictionary

  • frivolous — friv·o·lous / fri və ləs/ adj: lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact ◇ In an attempt to discourage frivolous lawsuits, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the signature of an attorney or party on any… …   Law dictionary

  • frivolous suit — A suit without purpose to determine an actual controversy, as where the parties control by interest both sides of the litigation. 1 Am J2d Actions § 56 …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act — The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) is a federal legislative act in the United States regarding private class action lawsuits for securities fraud. SLUSA amended portions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the… …   Wikipedia

  • Vexatious litigation — is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter …   Wikipedia

  • vexatious litigation — n. A lawsuit brought without probable cause, out of malice toward the opposing party. The Essential Law Dictionary. Sphinx Publishing, An imprint of Sourcebooks, Inc. Amy Hackney Blackwell. 2008. vexatious litigation …   Law dictionary

  • Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation — Main article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Legislation and litigation The Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation is a group of lawsuits filed in various United States Courts by numerous individuals who believe in the… …   Wikipedia

  • Private Securities Litigation Reform Act — The United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) implemented several substantive changes affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability,… …   Wikipedia

  • Landmark Education litigation — Since its adoption of approximately its current structure in 1991, Landmark Education LLC (LE) has become involved in a variety of legal proceedings, as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a subject relevant to other lawsuits. Many of these cases… …   Wikipedia

  • Private Securities Litigation Reform Act – PSLRA — Legislation passed by Congress in 1995 to stem the filing of frivolous or unwarranted securities lawsuits. The PSLRA increased the amount of evidence plaintiffs were required to have before filing a securities fraud case with the federal courts.… …   Investment dictionary

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”