[Martin Tell]

Difficult to get Rule 11 sanctions against a pro se plaintiff. Standard is knowingly filing a pleading not reasonably supported by law (or reasonable expectation of change in law) or facts. Most states have Rule 11 as well.

I was recently involved in a case where a pro se plaintiff (and a lawyer to boot!) was hit for $6500 in Rule 11 sanctions. That was, however, only half of defendant's out of pocket lawyer expense. Nothing awarded for defendant's time and bother. Defendant is contemplated suing the out of control lawyer for malicious prosecution. Oh yeah, out of control lawyer is of course appealing grant of Rule 11 sanctions. Deal could end up costing defendant a bundle, while out of control lawyer pays nothing for his continued frivolous filings.

Grant of Rule 11 sanctions is entirely discretionary on part of judge, both as to whether they are granted and in what amount. So it's not really "loser pays." Unfortunately.

[esquirette]

Difficult to get but I still would not want the doors of the courthouse closed on threat of ‘loser pays’ no matter what.

[Jagermonster]

For those of you who (like me) feel chronically compelled to look at the text of what the law actually says, the text of federal rule of civil procedure 11 can be found here.

[Mr. Lucky]

Even without FRCP 11, the successful defendant in this case will have a cause of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Unfortunately, its got to bear a boat load of expense in the meanwhile and then face the very probable fact that losers like this have no assets subject to execution.

[Darren McCarty]

Thanks for that post. The first thing that came through my head reading this was rule 11, but I wasn't sure how it applied to those with a fool for a client.

I ASSUME this is intended to be a diversity case (with the publisher in Tennessee and two other parties in Michigan) and not a federal question. I'm not sure however since I've only seen the news articles, not the claims.