Posted on 05/22/2004 12:34:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
Re-read my comment. I say in frivolous suits, the losing firm pays the amount they were suing for.
I understood that, I am saying what you want is in the Federal Rules of procedure right now. YOUR suggestion exists in black letter law.
Judges just don't have the stones to enforce it becasue many of the lawyers are buddies and former firm mates. If they enforce it agais some up and comming firm it is to keep competition out. (it is very very very very very rarely enforce, I have only seen it against pro se litigants)
This is the same as the endless overlapping gun control lawys that are uselessly passed.
Two rules that are identical and not enforce are just as usless as one not enforced.
I really want to see sanctions pushed against these megafirms fighting for our right to valuless coupons as a class action.
This is for federal civil courts when you have disputes which cross state lines. (ie Plaintiff from California and Defendant from NY.)
You raise a good point. How many suits were settled because the looser did not have to pay?
Oh. But doesn't the federal court in those circumstances go by the laws of one of the two states that the litigants are from? I never actually took CivPro, but I know that it often deals with "choice of law"-type decisions between two states. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.