3 ms·

That's not how the courts work though is it?

jacquesm 3y ago
That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).
- fallingknife 3y ago
  The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. Again: it is your opinion that these are frivolous lawsuits, and that's fine. But there are probably just as many (or more) people that think that they are not. A frivolous lawsuit is one that does not have merit, has no facts supporting it and usually isn't intended to be won. The lawsuit itself is the goal. These don't qualify as far as I'm concerned. Not even close.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  For the legal definition of "frivolous", yes. For stuff like asking for additional EPA assessments which change nothing, but add another year and cost $$$, not so much.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    You are assuming that you know the outcome of the assessment then. But that isn't always the case.
    - q1w2 3y ago
      If you look at the outcomes of the assessments, they add zero value. They are intentionally designed to waste time and money. As an example, the nuclear storage facility was delayed, and ultimately cancelled, because the geologic analysis had only established the stability of the ground for the next 800,000 years, and the lawsuit demanded that it be extended to several MILLION years into the future. ...and they WON. Absolute INSANITY.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      No, NEPA only requires you to gather the environmental impact data. There is no obligation to act on it in any way. It commonly gets used to request for more data to be gathered and delay projects further and use this as a bargaining chip or to sink the project entirely by creating costs for the project owner.
- underseacables 3y ago
  Not Exactly. When it comes to a government action, if an attorney sues under environmental justice laws, and they win, the government pays their legal fees. The lawyers are incentivized to file suit. Very much like the bogus prop 65 industry.
  - Affric 3y ago
    So, the government does something unlawful and then the government pay the legal fees that the citizens have incurred to stop the government from taking unlawful actions? What is the problem exactly? Costs are often awarded in many jurisdictions.
93po 3y ago
The bar for not getting dismissed is massively low.

That's absolutely how they work if you bring a frivolous lawsuit you will end up with more trouble than you bargained for. There may be fines involved, you may have to pay the party that you sued, you may have to pay their costs for representation and so on. A lawsuit that you lose is fine, one that is frivolous really isn't, in those cases even the attorneys may get sanctioned (by the judge, or, less commonly, by the bar to the point where if they keep it up they may end up being disbarred).

fallingknife 3y ago
The penalty for frivolous lawsuits is usually to pay the legal expenses of your opponent. This is an effective penalty to deter people trying to make money from filing frivolous lawsuits. It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. It will be years before the lawsuit gets to that point, and if you are willing to trade money for a delay, the prospect of having to pay 2x the money for the same delay is hardly a deterrent.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > It is not an effective penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits to delay projects. Again: it is your opinion that these are frivolous lawsuits, and that's fine. But there are probably just as many (or more) people that think that they are not. A frivolous lawsuit is one that does not have merit, has no facts supporting it and usually isn't intended to be won. The lawsuit itself is the goal. These don't qualify as far as I'm concerned. Not even close.
ajmurmann 3y ago
For the legal definition of "frivolous", yes. For stuff like asking for additional EPA assessments which change nothing, but add another year and cost $$$, not so much.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You are assuming that you know the outcome of the assessment then. But that isn't always the case.
  - q1w2 3y ago
    If you look at the outcomes of the assessments, they add zero value. They are intentionally designed to waste time and money. As an example, the nuclear storage facility was delayed, and ultimately cancelled, because the geologic analysis had only established the stability of the ground for the next 800,000 years, and the lawsuit demanded that it be extended to several MILLION years into the future. ...and they WON. Absolute INSANITY.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    No, NEPA only requires you to gather the environmental impact data. There is no obligation to act on it in any way. It commonly gets used to request for more data to be gathered and delay projects further and use this as a bargaining chip or to sink the project entirely by creating costs for the project owner.
underseacables 3y ago
Not Exactly. When it comes to a government action, if an attorney sues under environmental justice laws, and they win, the government pays their legal fees. The lawyers are incentivized to file suit. Very much like the bogus prop 65 industry.
- Affric 3y ago
  So, the government does something unlawful and then the government pay the legal fees that the citizens have incurred to stop the government from taking unlawful actions? What is the problem exactly? Costs are often awarded in many jurisdictions.

93po 3y ago

The bar for not getting dismissed is massively low.