News

First Judicial District Awarded Attorney’s Fees for Defending Against Frivolous Lawsuits

August 10, 2000

PHILADELPHIA — The First Judicial District was awarded attorneys’ fees and costs on three recent occasions by three different federal courts after separate lawsuits filed by former employees were dismissed as frivolous. In two of the three instances, the plaintiff’s attorney was found jointly responsible with his client for payment of fees and costs to the FJD – the administrative unit of the state court system covering Philadelphia. “As administrators of the Philadelphia County courts, we know the harm caused by frivolous litigation all too well,” said Alex Bonavitacola, president judge of Philadelphia Common Pleas Court and chairman of the FJD’s Administrative Governing Board. “Lawsuits with no legal or factual merit clog up the court system, waste the time of judges and juries and delay justice for people with legitimate claims.” The thousands of dollars in fee awards — that came from the cases that began as long ago as 1995 and ended as recently as April 2000 — are a result of the district’s decision to aggressively address frivolous litigation it must defend against. While the FJD recognizes the right of an aggrieved party to pursue litigation on legitimate grounds, Judge Bonavitacola stressed the district’s governing board believes the costs of defending meritless actions should be borne by the plaintiffs and their attorneys rather than the taxpayers who fund the Philadelphia court system. “By vigorously pursuing our right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs in appropriate situations, we intend to send a strong message to potential litigants and their attorneys that they should think twice before filing a lawsuit without any legitimate basis,” he said. The first case involved a lawsuit brought by a former Philadelphia Municipal Court employee who claimed he was terminated without adequate due process. After unsuccessfully pursuing an action against the FJD and certain administrative personnel in 1995, the matter ended in an award of summary judgment for the defendants. The former court employee filed a second action in 1997 based on the same facts, changing only the theory of liability. Federal District Court Judge James F. McClure Jr. dismissed the second action in 1998 because the statute of limitations had expired. The former employee got another lawyer and appealed the ruling, which the Federal Appeals Court in Philadelphia in 1999 summarily affirmed. FJD attorneys — Robert F. Stewart Jr. and Patrick M. Northen of Dilworth Paxson LLP — filed an application for attorneys’ fees and expenses after the affirmation. They argued the plaintiff and his attorney knew — or reasonably should have known — the appeal was frivolous and should therefore pay costs incurred in defending against it. In Herbert Rifkin v. First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, No. 98-7495, the Appeals Court granted the FJD’s request and assessed attorneys’ fees and costs against the plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $11,749.46. Following its success at the court of appeals, the FJD renewed a petition for attorneys’ fees it had previously filed with Judge McClure after he dismissed the same plaintiff’s action in district court. Judge McClure found that he should also be responsible for paying the district’s attorneys’ fees and costs of $10,898.09 under federal law that permits a court to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant in a civil rights action that was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. In an unpublished opinion, Judge McClure commented: “every argument offered by plaintiff, even the untimely ones, are (sic) simply wrong and contrary to established law. That is the quintessence of frivolous litigation, and attorneys’ fees and expenses are warranted under 1988(b).” Herbert Rifkin v. First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, No. 4:CV-98-0117 (Middle District of Pennsylvania). The FJD also was awarded attorneys’ fees against both the plaintiff and his attorney in Wright v. First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, No. 97-6115 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In that case, a former employee sued the district for alleged violations of his civil rights in his firing. The FJD moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, which the plaintiff did not oppose. Federal District Court Judge J. Curtis Joyner dismissed the complaint on March 17, 1998. Despite his failure to oppose the FJD’s dismissal motion, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the federal Appeals Court. After an entire year passed without filing any brief in support of his appeal, the court dismissed the case. The FJD — represented by Stewart and Christine M. Callahan — filed a motion with the Appellate Court seeing to recover its attorneys’ fees because the plaintiff and his attorney had filed a frivolous appeal. On June 21, 1999, the Court of Appeals granted that motion and awarded the First Judicial District attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,506.66, part of which was against the plaintiff and his attorney and part against the plaintiff alone.