High Court Ruling Targets Frivolous Suits

In a decision aimed at deterring frivolous lawsuits, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for government agencies hit with meritless suits to obtain reimbursement of legal expenses.

The ruling could be a major benefit for local governments statewide, according to lawyers familiar with the issue. For example, between 1996 and 1998, about 80% of all resolved lawsuits against Los Angeles County--the defendant in the case that produced Monday’s ruling--concluded without any monetary payment, according to a brief filed with the court by a coalition of about 100 California cities and governmental associations.

“The cost of investigating and defending meritless lawsuits is immense and has a negative fiscal impact upon millions of taxpayers and hundreds of public entities in California,” the coalition told the court.

The ruling came in the case of a Los Angeles man who escaped from a county hospital and killed himself. His family sued Los Angeles County, alleging medical malpractice and negligence, although state law grants government agencies immunity in such situations.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the county, calling the lawsuit baseless. The ruling established a legal standard that will make it easier for judges to require plaintiffs to reimburse defendants’ legal expenses in such cases.

Girard Fisher, who represented the county in the case, predicted that the ruling would reduce the number of groundless suits filed against governments. Although the county’s legal expenses in the case were only about $9,000, the county pursued the case to the Supreme Court in hopes of getting a ruling that would apply to other suits, Fisher said.

“It wasn’t about the money at all,” Fisher said. “It was about the principle because it affects thousands of cases.”

The attorney for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.

The family of David Peter Kobzoff filed the suit against Los Angeles County after he took his life on Oct. 31, 1993. Emergency personnel had prevented him from jumping off a cliff near Palos Verdes and had taken him to Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

Kobzoff was to be held for 72 hours. Hospital staff, however, allowed him to use a bathroom that was neither secured nor supervised. Kobzoff left the hospital and, once outside, dove in front of a truck, killing himself.

A trial judge ruled in favor of the county, noting that the law grants government agencies immunity for the injury or death of an escaping mental patient. The judge ordered the family to reimburse the county for its expenses in defending the lawsuit, but a Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

The appeals court ruled that plaintiffs cannot be forced to pay a defendant’s expenses unless a suit not only had no reasonable chance of winning but also was filed in bad faith.

That ruling contradicted decisions by other state appellate courts. Defense lawyers complained that it would be extremely difficult to prove that a suit was filed in bad faith.

The Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, lowered the legal hurdle, ruling that reimbursement can be required if the frivolous suit meets either one of those tests.

“In light of the county’s indisputable immunity, plaintiffs’ decision to pursue the action against it, notwithstanding that immunity, was unreasonable as a matter of law,” Justice Ming W. Chin wrote for the court.

The dead man’s family had asked the court to allow the suit to proceed because “it was undisputed the county was clearly factually responsible,” regardless of the immunity. The court said that only the Legislature can change the law to protect plaintiffs in such cases.

The ruling clarified a 1980 state law that said government agencies are entitled to court costs and attorney fees when forced to defend baseless lawsuits. The law also applied to nongovernmental defendants that are brought into litigation by other parties in an attempt to spread blame.

In all other litigation, the losing party can collect only court costs, such as filing fees. Those costs represent less than 10% of the legal expenses in defending a lawsuit, with lawyer and expert fees commanding the biggest chunk.

Defense lawyers say that the threat of having to pay defense fees usually is enough to get lawyers to drop lawsuits that lack a legal foundation.

“The ultimate effect of the decision will be to save money for public agencies and taxpayers, both in the direct costs of lawsuits and in the time of public employees who otherwise have to set aside important work in order to deal with meritless lawsuits,” said Anthony B. Drewry, who represented local governments in the case.