Defendant wins: why not countersue?

[Darth_Panda]

You can read about the Rule 11 of Federal Rule of Civil procedure for sanctions based on frivolous pleadings here:

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 11”)’ is
designed to ensure that claims brought in the federal courts have merit
and are not brought for an improper purpose.2 To accomplish these
goals, the Rule imposes upon an attorney or litigant’ a duty to make a
reasonable examination of the merits of and motives behind a claim
before signing a paper and filing it with the court.4 Rule 11 imposes
mandatory sanctions for failure to comply with this duty,5 and the Rule
encourages both courts and litigants to play an active role in deterring
litigation abuses.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2779&context=flr (warning .pdf)

Many state rules are similar in nature.

[Bricker]

@gotpasswords

A few years ago, the cost to file an answer was more than made up for when I caused the prosecutor to change color after I caused his star witness to perjure themselves.

Red from embarrassment followed by a sickly green when His Honor said “The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with prejudice.”

$75 filing fee to see this? Priceless.

You had a prosecutor and a plaintiff, huh?

[md2000]

In Canada generally the losing party pays the costs of the winner. As a result, there is significantly less litigation compared to the USA.

(The law societies also discourage contingency fees; plus, damages have to be more specific, and with our health care system, there are a lot less medical bills to deal with.)

I recall one potential class action suit was shut down right at the beginning because the lawyers for the “class” could not post a bond to guarantee they could cover the victim’s costs if they lost.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

You had a prosecutor and a plaintiff, huh?

I’m assuming that “prosecutor” is meant to indicate the plaintiff’s counsel.

[Muffin]

Costs can be a handy tool when dealing with litigants who just won’t go away.

Where I am (YMMV – different jurisdictions have different rules), an unpaid costs order from a previous lawsuit can be used to force the plaintiff to post security for costs before moving forward with a new lawsuit. Since this can be dodged if the plaintiff goes bankrupt, it’s also wise to have the original costs order include a term stating that that security for costs must be paid before a new matter can be brought.

[Colibri]

Legal advice is best suited to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Northern_Piper]

@md2000

<snip>The law societies also discourage contingency fees

To repeat an earlier post in response to md2000:

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]

[Quote=md2000]

Plus, most law societies are hostile to the idea of contingency fees
[/quote]

Another WRONG statement by md2000.

To quote wikipedia on contingency fees:

Canada

Contingent fee agreements are legal in some provinces of Canada (Alberta, British Columbia (except in family law cases involving child custody or access),[3] Ontario[4] and Quebec among others). In other Canadian provinces, an attorney may collect a percentage of recovery in case of a victory but must charge an hourly fee otherwise.

To those four provinces specifically mentioned, I would add Saskatchewan, which also allows contingency fees. When you add those five provinces together, they have 89.1% of the Canadian population (Source: Wikipedia: List of Canadian Provinces and Territories by Population), so contingency fees are very common in Canada.
[/QUOTE]

@md2000

I recall one potential class action suit was shut down right at the beginning because the lawyers for the “class” could not post a bond to guarantee they could cover the victim’s costs if they lost.

That’s quite a feat, since costs are not available in class action litigation in Canada.

[Muffin]

Slight correction to the cite. In Ontario contingency fees are permitted except for criminal or family law matters.

[Spoons]

@Muffin

Slight correction to the cite. In Ontario contingency fees are permitted except for criminal or family law matters.

They’re allowed in all matters except for criminal or family matters here also, and I would be surprised if they were allowed in those matters in any jurisdiction.

Regardless, I also noticed md2000’s assertion, and remembered Northern Piper’s answer from the previous thread where the assertion was made. I’m glad that NP brought it forward.