4 ms·

>> "That isn't true at all." In fact, it's false. The majority of cases, both criminal and civil, are settled in the US before going to trial.

by nxzero 11y ago

akiselev 11y ago
How many cases are thrown out versus those that are filed? Is a baseless case immediately frivolous and dismissed or does it take tens or hundreds of hours of billable time to show a judge that it is baseless?
- tptacek 11y ago
  The latter! And, even apart from the billable hours, you can lose months just to court delays. More importantly: these aren't especially easy cases to dismiss. To first approximation: getting a case dismissed requires an argument that regardless of any evidence that might be admitted at trial, the opponent can't possibly prevail simply on legal grounds. Here we have the case of someone who claims to have had a partnership agreement that predates Cruise's incorporation. That agreement may have been oral, or it may have been memorialized in some casual way. It's also important to observe that it's Cruise suing here, not the person claiming an equity stake. That's because the person making that claim can wait until the least convenient possible time to file suit. The leverage they have in this case is probably just torpedoing the deal, not relief in court.
- thravesty 11y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Approximately 100% of civil cases see a motion to dismiss early on, essentially the legal argument that the suit is obviously unfounded. Since it wastes everyone's time, attorneys don't tend to bring those sorts of suits, so the great majority of motions to dismiss don't go through. Judges tend to think that the suits actually brought to court should be heard out. So while settling isn't at all an admission to the claims of the case, it's at least done in recognition that a reasonable person would probably want to hear out both sides of the argument before deciding. It is a pretty strict standard, and I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't say what exactly would qualify for dismissal outright. Maybe something like "this person has never even met my client" or "this company doesn't even exist".
  - huac 11y ago
    "the law under which you are suing does not exist" but short of one of these it's pretty easy to make a plausible case. the standard in civil cases is 'preponderance of evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
    - nxzero 11y ago
      Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/preponderance-of-the-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/preponderance-...
  - CPLX 11y ago
    Typical basic motions to dismiss usually fall into these main categories: 1. This isn't the right court (jurisdiction) 2. We're not the right parties (standing/jurisdiction) 3. It's too late (statute of limitations) 4. No law has been broken (failure to state claim) 5. Nobody was really harmed (failure to state claim) Typically it's numbers 4 and 5 that would matter for a frivolous lawsuit. If you want to see what that kind of lawsuit and a successful motion to dismiss look like here's a good example: https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2013-ny-slip-op-32402-u.pdf?ts=1381505704 https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2013-ny-slip-...
- rayiner 11y ago
  Depends on why the case is baseless. There are three inflection points in a civil suit: motion to dismiss, summary judgment, and trial. Motion to dismiss is relatively quick and considers only a limited universe of evidence: basically, just the allegations in the complaint, answer, and certain attachments. You may win on a motion to dismiss based on a legal issue (i.e. "you can't sue for that" or "the law doesn't make that illegal") or when the plaintiff can't even make credible allegations that would give rise to liability if they were true. Summary judgment is where you can get claims where the allegations can't be substantiated with enough evidence for a jury to reasonably find them credible. Trial is where evidence is weighed to find what is more likely than not to be true. Getting to summary judgment is usually pretty expensive because it usually comes after discovery (reviewing peoples' emails, deposing witnesses, etc). It would be very difficult to dispose of a case like this before summary judgment, because the issues are all factual: what was the nature of the agreement between these co-founders? Which is another reason to paper these things up from the beginning. It's very expensive to figure out after the fact what two people thought the arrangement between them was. When you have an agreement in writing, you can: 1) put in an arbitration clause which might let you get you the benefit of resolving the dispute in the more loosey-goosey world of arbitration; and 2) might give you hope of getting rid of a case on a motion to dismiss on the basis of the terms of the contract.
snowwrestler 11y ago
That stat doesn't really tell us anything about how easily baseless claims are dismissed, because judges can (and do) schedule pre-trial meetings for the purpose of encouraging a settlement by discussing a case's chances with both parties.

>> "That isn't true at all." In fact, it's false. The majority of cases, both criminal and civil, are settled in the US before going to trial.

by nxzero 11y ago

>> "That isn't true at all." In fact, it's false. The majority of cases, both criminal and civil, are settled in the US before going to trial.

akiselev 11y ago

How many cases are thrown out versus those that are filed? Is a baseless case immediately frivolous and dismissed or does it take tens or hundreds of hours of billable time to show a judge that it is baseless?

tptacek 11y ago
The latter! And, even apart from the billable hours, you can lose months just to court delays. More importantly: these aren't especially easy cases to dismiss. To first approximation: getting a case dismissed requires an argument that regardless of any evidence that might be admitted at trial, the opponent can't possibly prevail simply on legal grounds. Here we have the case of someone who claims to have had a partnership agreement that predates Cruise's incorporation. That agreement may have been oral, or it may have been memorialized in some casual way. It's also important to observe that it's Cruise suing here, not the person claiming an equity stake. That's because the person making that claim can wait until the least convenient possible time to file suit. The leverage they have in this case is probably just torpedoing the deal, not relief in court.
thravesty 11y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Approximately 100% of civil cases see a motion to dismiss early on, essentially the legal argument that the suit is obviously unfounded. Since it wastes everyone's time, attorneys don't tend to bring those sorts of suits, so the great majority of motions to dismiss don't go through. Judges tend to think that the suits actually brought to court should be heard out. So while settling isn't at all an admission to the claims of the case, it's at least done in recognition that a reasonable person would probably want to hear out both sides of the argument before deciding. It is a pretty strict standard, and I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't say what exactly would qualify for dismissal outright. Maybe something like "this person has never even met my client" or "this company doesn't even exist".
- huac 11y ago
  "the law under which you are suing does not exist" but short of one of these it's pretty easy to make a plausible case. the standard in civil cases is 'preponderance of evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/preponderance-of-the-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/preponderance-...
- CPLX 11y ago
  Typical basic motions to dismiss usually fall into these main categories: 1. This isn't the right court (jurisdiction) 2. We're not the right parties (standing/jurisdiction) 3. It's too late (statute of limitations) 4. No law has been broken (failure to state claim) 5. Nobody was really harmed (failure to state claim) Typically it's numbers 4 and 5 that would matter for a frivolous lawsuit. If you want to see what that kind of lawsuit and a successful motion to dismiss look like here's a good example: https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2013-ny-slip-op-32402-u.pdf?ts=1381505704 https://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2013-ny-slip-...
rayiner 11y ago
Depends on why the case is baseless. There are three inflection points in a civil suit: motion to dismiss, summary judgment, and trial. Motion to dismiss is relatively quick and considers only a limited universe of evidence: basically, just the allegations in the complaint, answer, and certain attachments. You may win on a motion to dismiss based on a legal issue (i.e. "you can't sue for that" or "the law doesn't make that illegal") or when the plaintiff can't even make credible allegations that would give rise to liability if they were true. Summary judgment is where you can get claims where the allegations can't be substantiated with enough evidence for a jury to reasonably find them credible. Trial is where evidence is weighed to find what is more likely than not to be true. Getting to summary judgment is usually pretty expensive because it usually comes after discovery (reviewing peoples' emails, deposing witnesses, etc). It would be very difficult to dispose of a case like this before summary judgment, because the issues are all factual: what was the nature of the agreement between these co-founders? Which is another reason to paper these things up from the beginning. It's very expensive to figure out after the fact what two people thought the arrangement between them was. When you have an agreement in writing, you can: 1) put in an arbitration clause which might let you get you the benefit of resolving the dispute in the more loosey-goosey world of arbitration; and 2) might give you hope of getting rid of a case on a motion to dismiss on the basis of the terms of the contract.

snowwrestler 11y ago

That stat doesn't really tell us anything about how easily baseless claims are dismissed, because judges can (and do) schedule pre-trial meetings for the purpose of encouraging a settlement by discussing a case's chances with both parties.