[DaGman]

I don't know if the suit is frivilous or not as I don't know anything about it. I do know that the courts whack you for court cost and attorney fees if a case is thrown out because the court considers it frivilous.

In light of the previous discussions here about lawsuit abuse I couldn't help but notice the irony that one person's cause is another's claim of lawsuit abuse.

[L.N. Smithee]

I don't know if the suit is frivilous or not as I don't know anything about it. I do know that the courts whack you for court cost and attorney fees if a case is thrown out because the court considers it frivilous.

Here's the difference: Saundra and her partners were trying to make sure that Planned Parenthood told all the facts about abortion in its materials -- including the breast cancer link -- so that the women they counsel are FULLY informed about all the risks involved.

Some Shylock in New York, on the other hand, is blaming McDonald's for his obese teen clients' unhealthy girth when court papers show that it was the fat kids' parents who took them to Mickey D's.

[templar]

I do know that the courts whack you for court cost and attorney fees if a case is thrown out because the court considers it frivilous.

Good point. If conducting a lawsuit always expect the other party to put up a motion to dismiss based on your case being frivolous. Be prepared (with lots of law, precedent and fact) to counter this. You must force the court to rule on your case based on it's merit and not let it be declared it frivolous. This is not legal advice (consult a lawyer for that), just my strategical observation.