3 ms·

Is there not some office that at least validates the merits of the suit though? Otherwise, the legal system can pretty much be used as a tool for extortion no?

Is there not some office that at least validates the merits of the suit though? Otherwise, the legal system can pretty much be used as a tool for extortion no? (I'm Canadian here, so excuse my ignorance)

mikeryan 17y ago
No. The closest you'll get is that very few lawyers will take your case if it completely sucks. And it can get thrown out pretty much off the bat from the the judge Criminal cases do have grand juries which weigh the merits of a case before going to trial.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  So theoretically, an organization with large enough pockets could literally destroy a competing organization with lawsuits designed only to ensure the victim expends large amounts of cash on legal fees, correct? I'm wondering if this method of "business" has ever been attempted?
  - mikeryan 17y ago
    Theoretically yes but there are some practical issues that can make this complex. I don't doubt its been tried.
  - PotatoEngineer 17y ago
    When the Golden Gate Bridge was being built, the ferry companies (who would be put out of business by the bridge) tried to sue the bridge to death with something like 2000 trivial lawsuits. While each of these was easily defeated, the only thing that stopped the ferry companies was that the local populace boycotted the ferries until they stopped the lawsuits. So yes, it's been done before, is probably being done now, and will happen again. You can counter-sue trivial lawsuits to make the plaintiff go away (and stop filing suits against you), but it takes some work and laying out some money to lawyers.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Thanks for the background. This whole thing strikes me as a horrible loophole in the legal system. I'd imagine the same is true in most western countries.
      - electromagnetic 17y ago
        Sadly it is the same in most western countries, however if you sue me because I wore a pink hat (frivolous lawsuit) I have the right to counter-sue you (which would be a non-frivolous lawsuit). Yours would be thrown-out and cost you money and probably a lot to get a lawyer to take it on, mine however would likely be taken on on a no-win-no-fee basis by basically any lawyer because it would be so easy to win. So your suit would cost you money, and mine would likely cost me nothing or make me money. So yes the loophole is there, but the loophole itself is kind of self destructive for anyone dumb enough to try it.
        run4yourlives 17y ago
        Yet the example you gave would have been successful had it not been for outraged civilians mounting a boycott. How many issues are being exploited that don't warrant such public outrage? My guess is more than a few.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    You're aware of the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, correct? Your comment about using the legal system for extortion is a real problem.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      The RIAA, as much as it pains me to say this, is acting within the letter of the law, in that I would not call their suit frivolous. Immoral and unethical sure, but not frivolous. They've put forward a case that explains that a particular person has broken an existing law and caused them damages of x amount, and the court has agreed with them in most cases.
  - akeefer 17y ago
    That's basically what's happened to my company (the lawsuit is still ongoing).
yummyfajitas 17y ago
You can file for a summary judgement if there are no material fact in dispute which could cause you to lose the case. Basically, the judge can say "even if all the plaintiff's allegations are true the defendant will still win, so lets skip the trial." That's probably what will happen here.

mikeryan 17y ago

No. The closest you'll get is that very few lawyers will take your case if it completely sucks. And it can get thrown out pretty much off the bat from the the judge Criminal cases do have grand juries which weigh the merits of a case before going to trial.

run4yourlives 17y ago
So theoretically, an organization with large enough pockets could literally destroy a competing organization with lawsuits designed only to ensure the victim expends large amounts of cash on legal fees, correct? I'm wondering if this method of "business" has ever been attempted?
- mikeryan 17y ago
  Theoretically yes but there are some practical issues that can make this complex. I don't doubt its been tried.
- PotatoEngineer 17y ago
  When the Golden Gate Bridge was being built, the ferry companies (who would be put out of business by the bridge) tried to sue the bridge to death with something like 2000 trivial lawsuits. While each of these was easily defeated, the only thing that stopped the ferry companies was that the local populace boycotted the ferries until they stopped the lawsuits. So yes, it's been done before, is probably being done now, and will happen again. You can counter-sue trivial lawsuits to make the plaintiff go away (and stop filing suits against you), but it takes some work and laying out some money to lawyers.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Thanks for the background. This whole thing strikes me as a horrible loophole in the legal system. I'd imagine the same is true in most western countries.
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      Sadly it is the same in most western countries, however if you sue me because I wore a pink hat (frivolous lawsuit) I have the right to counter-sue you (which would be a non-frivolous lawsuit). Yours would be thrown-out and cost you money and probably a lot to get a lawyer to take it on, mine however would likely be taken on on a no-win-no-fee basis by basically any lawyer because it would be so easy to win. So your suit would cost you money, and mine would likely cost me nothing or make me money. So yes the loophole is there, but the loophole itself is kind of self destructive for anyone dumb enough to try it.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        Yet the example you gave would have been successful had it not been for outraged civilians mounting a boycott. How many issues are being exploited that don't warrant such public outrage? My guess is more than a few.
- scott_s 17y ago
  You're aware of the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharers, correct? Your comment about using the legal system for extortion is a real problem.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    The RIAA, as much as it pains me to say this, is acting within the letter of the law, in that I would not call their suit frivolous. Immoral and unethical sure, but not frivolous. They've put forward a case that explains that a particular person has broken an existing law and caused them damages of x amount, and the court has agreed with them in most cases.
- akeefer 17y ago
  That's basically what's happened to my company (the lawsuit is still ongoing).

yummyfajitas 17y ago

You can file for a summary judgement if there are no material fact in dispute which could cause you to lose the case. Basically, the judge can say "even if all the plaintiff's allegations are true the defendant will still win, so lets skip the trial." That's probably what will happen here.