Re: California Workers Comp Sucks
You should've considered my earlier advice - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
I disagree with you, Tony, regarding your interpretation that 'without merit' equates to 'frivolous'!
The California Code of Civil Procedure, specifically, Section 128.7(b), explains in great detail what can be considered frivolous as opposed to what is reasonable concerning pleadings in a Complaint.
You're not disagreeing with me - you're disagreeing with the legal dictionary and your own source.
Unlike you, I supply the source to support my statements - that wasn't "my interpretation"- that is the legal definition of frivolous.
Here, I'll re-post, you obviously didn't read it.
Of minimal importance; legally worthless.
A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit
In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant.
In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.
You didn't even read your own source, if you did you would've agreed with me.
Right from your source it clearly says "Frivolous" means totally and completely without merit "
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
128.5.(b)(2) "Frivolous" means totally and completely without merit" or for
the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.
Also, like I said earlier, filing a civil lawsuit on the basis of a violation of 132a would be considered without merit (frivolous) unless you intended to challenge precedent established by California Court of Appeal, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, No. C067169 (Sept. 26, 2012)
You would have to present a "nonfrivolous argument" to establish the basis for your challenge or you could face penalties.
It's true that you may not face penalties, it's the courts discretion but it's a possibility.
California Court of Appeal, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, No. C067169 (Sept. 26, 2012), focused on that inquiry and determined that a plaintiff cannot avail herself of section 132a as the basis of a tort action for wrongful termination.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 128-130
128.7. (a)(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
establishment of new law.
I won't waste anymore time debunking your garbage - in the future I will just delete the nonsense and be done with it.
If you continue to refuse to source your statements (especially when you try to undermine myself and this forum) you will be banned.
I'm not going to beg you to follow the rules of this board - this game is officially over.
Jazzyj - you need to start a new thread, you're busting into the middle of a debate (if you want to call it that)
I'm not going off topic at this time.
Last edited by tony; 05-15-2016 at 04:01 PM.
Moderator Responses are based on my personal bias, experience and research - They do not represent the views of the admin nor may be accepted in the legal community, always consult an attorney.