What kind of judges keep letting Trump sue everybody?

Recently news outlets reported that:

My question: where does Trump find the judges that let him bully others, and why haven’t those judges been corrected?

I was triggered in asking this by a recent John Oliver show. He pointed out that

And that the court and county is paid handsomely to allow these trials, instead of throwing them ou, as they should.

I don’t know if I accept the truth of this claim. What’s the ultimate win/loss record for Trump claims? Can you provide some specific examples of judges’ actions you feel merited correction?

That’s a summary with a fair mix of error.

The court involved is not a “small local court,” but the federal court for the Eastern District of Texas. Contrary to Oliver’s claims, the patent cases are filed in a number of different locations in the District, primarily because of local rules that fast-track patent litigation. See, e.g., this PDF.

Throwing cases out in patent litigation can be difficult to do if the plaintiff alleges issues of material fact. As a general rule, a plaintiff will be entitled to a jury trial if he alleges his patent was infringed and does so carefully enough.

And nowhere does Oliver allege that the court is paid handsomely. But he did offer a raccoon impression.

Trump being involved with 3500 lawsuits doesn’t mean he initiated all 3500. The OP’s link shows that he was the plaintiff in 1900 cases, the defendant in 1450 cases, and 150 cases involved bankruptcy, third party or some other reason.

That’s still an insane amount.
Of the 1900 cases where he was the plaintiff, a great number were defamation cases, where Trump claimed he was insulted or slandered. At this point, what kind of judge will accept such a claim and make a trial about it? Remember the Bill Maher case? And Bricker, the Bill Mahr case is one such case where a judge should have said: “Come on. Really, mr. Trump?”

Is it Trump, personally, or corporations owned or controlled by him? When I worked in corporate America (large Silicon Valley Firm) we were constantly initiating and fighting lawsuits.

Trump AND his companies, said the article.

Just so we’re clear, while the article you linked makes a big deal of the 1900 figure, halfway down it specifies that 1600 of the plaintiff-side cases were suits by his casinos against gamblers who took out credit and then didn’t pay. Take those out, and he and his companies have filed 300 cases, a far less dramatic number.

As for the Eastern District of Texas being paid handsomely, the filing fee for a civil case in federal court is $400. Bricker, help me out; barring unusual circumstances, is there anywhere else in the case where money would be paid into the court? Transcripts, I guess.

The case about the size of his flagpole does sound kind of amusing.

Then there’s your answer. This might seem odd in The Netherlands, but it’s not uncommon in the US.

The U.S. court system allows anyone to enter a suit. Prisoners in jails do it as a sort of hobby. Mentally ill individuals sue celebrities and god. Sovereign citizens expect the courts to uphold their right to ignore the courts. Some lawyers make a specialty out of nuisance suits because settling is far cheaper than going to court. It is almost impossible to go so far that judges will limit one’s ability to enter further suits, although a few mentally ill overreachers have hit that point.

The court system is either broken or part of our basic freedoms or both. Any way you look at it, though, Trump is entirely within his rights to go to court as a private citizen as often as he likes. Each suit is treated as a new one and must be judged upon its merits. A judge who prevents that is the one who has to be booted out of the court system.

I looked up nuisance suits, wow what a terrible flaw in the system. We don’t have that in the Netherlands. Anyway thanks for the answers.

Just to be clear as to what you might have read about: “Nuisance” has a formal legal meaning, for cases where someone does something nasty on their own property that affects other people. Paper mills and pig farms can be nuisances because of their stink, for instance. The law provides a mechanism for someone affected by the nuisance to sue and try to have the nuisance reduced or shut down.

Exapno is using the term more colloquially, to refer to cases that are of questionable legal merit and arguably brought just to harass the defendant. There are tools in the law for throwing out such cases relatively quickly, but it is generally quite difficult to prevent someone from filing such cases at all, since it is not easy to evaluate whether a case has merit until it has actually been filed.

I do not know how other legal systems adjudicate property-related nuisances or guard against frivolous filings.

I can’t think of anything that’s not unusual – maybe contempt citations or other court-imposed sanctions would qualify, but they certainly would not be a source of a large influx of cash.

Increased profits for the courthouse cafeteria? :dubious: