3 ms·

What you want is fee-shifting. Doesn't need to be tied to the presence of a motion to dismiss. Unfortunately this is so un-American a concept we literally call

What you want is fee-shifting. Doesn't need to be tied to the presence of a motion to dismiss. Unfortunately this is so un-American a concept we literally call it the French Rule (or the English Rule)[0]. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to make getting rid of bullshit lawsuits easier. That is, if someone sues you for something that, say, isn't actually illegal, you get to throw out the lawsuit without having to go through discovery and a trial. This is important because rich people who can afford lawyers will absolutely sue[1] you as a censorship tactic, and being able to dismiss the suit quickly is the difference between a $10k legal bill and a $100k legal bill. In fact, anti-SLAPP bills work by giving you a fancy motion to dismiss that also triggers fee-shifting - which is enough for the rich person's lawyers to dissuade them from a censorious lawsuit. So I don't think we should make motions to dismiss more perilous to file. They're the last speck of respectability in our awful legal system. We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money. [0] Except in copyright where you can get fee-shifting under specific conditions. [1] Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money. How do you prove that, though?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  You don't prove it, the other party proves it to the judge by their inept case. I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves. For those representing themselves it should start coming up a bit before they'd be declared a vexatious litigant. For those represented by an attorney, it should probably be the attorney paying the fee for wasting the other party's time and money.
  - csdreamer7 3y ago
    > I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves. That is a bad argument. Poor people are unable to afford a lawyer in the first place for this (or they do not know they can sue over this-the poor tend to be poor in more ways than just money). They will act out in other ways. These lawsuits are primarily the domain of the rich or the middle class very vengeful. Right now, the fact that judges have not already implemented anti-SLAPP as a rule instead of keeping these frivolous avenues to sue is another sign of corruption in the judiciary that keeps lawyers employed.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  If the lawsuit gets dismissed on summary judgment, that's one sign...

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago

> We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money. How do you prove that, though?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
You don't prove it, the other party proves it to the judge by their inept case. I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves. For those representing themselves it should start coming up a bit before they'd be declared a vexatious litigant. For those represented by an attorney, it should probably be the attorney paying the fee for wasting the other party's time and money.
- csdreamer7 3y ago
  > I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves. That is a bad argument. Poor people are unable to afford a lawyer in the first place for this (or they do not know they can sue over this-the poor tend to be poor in more ways than just money). They will act out in other ways. These lawsuits are primarily the domain of the rich or the middle class very vengeful. Right now, the fact that judges have not already implemented anti-SLAPP as a rule instead of keeping these frivolous avenues to sue is another sign of corruption in the judiciary that keeps lawyers employed.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
If the lawsuit gets dismissed on summary judgment, that's one sign...