2015: Schweikert Voted For Amending Federal Rules On Frivolous Lawsuits By Mandating Sanctions On Those That File Them, Similar To A Situation Pre-1993 When The Rules Were Changed. In September 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "change[d] federal rules governing civil lawsuits to require federal courts to impose sanctions on parties that file frivolous civil lawsuits. The sanctions would need to include monetary payments to the other party to cover the other party's attorney fees and costs. The bill also would [have] eliminate[d] the so-called 'safe harbor' clause by removing the ability of parties to withdraw or correct claims considered frivolous within 21 days of filing." The vote was on the legislation. The House approved the bill by a vote of 241 to 185. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 501, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 758]
Federal, Rules Of Civil Procedures, Rule 11 Governs Sanctions For Frivolous Lawsuits Of Motions; Prior To 1993, Sanctions Were Mandatory, Afterwards They Were Left To The Courts To Decide. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 lays out how sanctions are determined in the filing of a frivolous lawsuit or legal motion. Rule 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in litigation that harasses or causes unnecessary delay, or from making legal arguments based on unwarranted factual assertions. A party that believes another party or attorney has violated Rule 11 can make a motion for sanctions. Prior to 1993, sanctions against parties that filed frivolous lawsuits were mandatory. Rule 11 was changed that year, however, and decisions since that time on whether sanctions are imposed and whether the complaining party should be reimbursed for increased attorneys' fees resulting from frivolous legal arguments have been left to the discretion of the court." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
The Safe Harbor Rule From The 1993 Changes Gives A Party 21 Days To Withdraw Before A Sanction Can Be Imposed. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The revised rule also provided a 'safe harbor' that gives a party 21 days to withdraw a challenged claim or defense before sanctions can be imposed. If a party fails to withdraw or modify an alleged claim or defense within that time period, the court can then impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable attorneys' fees if the court so decides." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
Opponents Of The Bill Claim That Mandatory Sanctions Promote More Frivolous Lawsuits; 87 Percent Of Judges Surveyed In 2005 Supported The 1993 Change. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it would reinstate rules that were widely recognized to have been failures in the decade before Rule 11 was changed in 1993. If anything, the proposed changes would promote further litigation as the prospect of mandatory sanctions and monetary compensation for attorneys' fees spur Rule 11 proceedings. They note that between 1983 and 1993 those elements triggered almost 7,000 Rule 11 filings, as attorneys took legal actions both on cases themselves and against opposing counsels, compared with just 19 such filings from 1938 to 1983, when sanctions were not required. The changes made in 1993 were intended to prevent that needless litigation and have been tremendously successful, with 87% of judges surveyed in 2005 favoring the changes." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
Opponents Note That Civil Rights Cases Are More Frequently Cited For Potential Frivolous Claims Due To The Nature Of Their Complaints. According to Congressional Quarterly "Opponents also say the proposed rule changes would have a chilling impact on civil rights cases. Because civil rights cases often involve an 'argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law,' they often involve novel issues that are particularly susceptible to claims of frivolity. Noting that a 1991 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that Rule 11 motions occurred more frequently in civil rights cases, opponents contend that a return to the pre-1993 version of Rule 11 would significantly disadvantage civil rights plaintiffs." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]