- 59 -
and 38 and of sec. 1927 [of 28 U.S.C.], is to induce litigants to
conform their behavior to the governing rules regardless of their
subjective beliefs. Groundless litigation diverts the time and
energies of judges from more serious claims; it imposes needless
costs on other litigants. Once the legal system has resolved a
claim, judges and lawyers must move on to other things. They
cannot endlessly rehear stale arguments.”).
Petitioner’s counsel continued to advance the “Delpit”,
“Scar”, and “Agency” issues long after being warned that the
issues were frivolous and would not be considered by the Court.
Petitioner’s counsel persisted in raising these issues and
requesting that we rule on them even after petitioner stipulated
that they were no longer issues in the case. In making these
arguments, petitioner’s counsel cited no relevant supporting
authority and either failed to perform the basic research to
discover or failed to disclose the substantial body of authority
specifically rejecting her arguments as frivolous.
We are mindful that there can be a thin line between zealous
advocacy and frivolity. The Court must “avoid hindsight review
of the claim, to resolve all doubts in favor of the signer and to
refrain from imposing sanctions where such action would stifle
the enthusiasm or chill the creativity that is the very lifeblood
of the law.” Greenhouse v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 136, 144
(S.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011