« Vice President Charles Dawes Makes A Monkey of Himself | Main | Kilborn v. UIC »
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Legislative Immunity?
How is this suit by a Maine legislator alleging she was stripped of her voting rights in retaliation for her anti-trans statements not barred by legislative immunity? She wants an injunction prohibiting the legislature from denying her vote or from ignoring her vote. This just seems obvious; what am I missing?
Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 12, 2025 at 09:53 AM in Howard Wasserman | Permalink
Comments
One Million Taken Off Frivolous Suit Sanctions against [now former] Texas attorney
Summary of Powell v Grimes:
"J. Clint Morgan finds that the trial court improperly ordered an individual to pay $1.46 million in sanctions to a foundation that was not a party in this suit. No parties in this suit asked the court to impose sanctions. And under the relevant Texas law, the judge could only make the individual pay sanctions to the court itself or to another party in the suit. Reversed."
Source: Caseportal website
The above illustrates the horrors of AI summarization.
What's wrong?
1. The court of appeals panel doesn't make findings. The trial court judge below issued findings of facts and conclusions of law, and entered judgment for attorney's fees based on fee evidence in light of Texas version of the loadstar (aka Rohrmoos) and used its discretion to impose sanctions (reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal)for bringing a baseless suit against the attorney defendants.
2. Numerous defendants (see full case style below) asked for both attorney's fees and sanctions and got both. The appeal is wholly about sanctions (punishment for what the judge below ruled was litigation (mis)conduct worthy of punishment by the lawyer plaintiff).
3. The non-party foundation was "awarded" $1 million (which got deleted on appeal), while the defense attorneys and their firms were "awarded" the remainder, which adds up to almost half a million. That part of the judgment was affirmed on appeal. They were all alleged to have been involved in a common scheme, i.e. a civil conspiracy, with fraud being the underlying tort (since civil conspiracy is not actionable independently).
The full case style is FRANK C. POWELL, Appellant, v. RICHARD M. GRIMES, GRIMES & FERTITTA, P.C., STEVEN P. LINDAMOOD, LINDAMOOD & ROBINSON, P.C., NICHOLAS BRUNO, BECK REDDEN LLP, CATHERINE HERRINGTON HALE, THE HERRINGTON LAW FIRM, P.C., STEPHEN FLETCHER, JULIANA FLETCHER, and KEVIN FLETCHER, Appellees.
Bottom line: Don't rely on AI-generated case summaries.
Here is the link to the case opinion:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14208748261104363349&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44
[Blawgmeister Wassermann left the comments open ... I couldn't resist the temptation to add something that some of the esteemed audience here may find useful].
Posted by: Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino | Mar 12, 2025 5:36:39 PM
Unfortunately the linked Bloomberg Law site is pay-walled. Could you post the complaint on some other site?
In the interim, I have a thought:
Lawsuits are a form of public speech and petitioning. So, even if there is no chance of winning under existing law/doctrine, it could be used to air out and publicize a grievance or even a political position or demand. Additionally, factual allegations in complaints cannot usually be made the basis of a defamation action (though that doesn't necessarily prevent libel suits being brought anyhow).
In Texas [state courts], however, it is dangerous to file such grievance-airing lawsuits because of the broad-sweeping anti-SLAPP statute (known as TCPA) and rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the functional equivalent of FRCP 12 motions to dismiss on the pleadings, but unlike FRCP 12 expressly authorizes an award of attorney's fees to the 2successful movant. In addition, there are several other sanctions rules/statutes, and no safe harbor provision analogous to rule 11 in federal court.
Recently, a Houston lawyer (since disbarred) sued opposing counsel and their law firms for allegedly fraudulent conduct in an underlying family law case and ended up with $1.46 million in shifted attorney's fees and sanctions. Last month, the First Court of Appeals shaved off 1 million and remanded, but affirmed the remainder. See Powell v Grimes, No. 01-23-00129-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 27, 2025, no pet. h.)
As for legislative immunity, a pro se gadfly sued the Texas Legislature and its members over COVID measures during the pandemic. That suit was predictably dismissed and then appealed, but he wasn't sanctioned and now has an appellate opinion to his name: Koepke v. Texas State Senate and Texas House of Representatives, No. 04-22-00256-CV (Tex.App.- San Antonio, July 31, 2023). He lost, but he got to make his point and also made case law.
The point here is that an apparently nonviable (and arguably frivolous) lawsuit can and sometimes does effectively serve some other purpose, or even several. As for the Powell cases, its in-terrorem effect should be substantial: Sue opposing counsel and be in the hole to the tune of six figures or more. ($1 mil was deleted on appeal because it was "awarded" to a nonparty: a legal charity).
You can find the cited opinions on open-access Google Scholar or on the Texas appellate court websites.
Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino, PhD (Politial Science)
Posted by: Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino | Mar 12, 2025 12:31:32 PM