H.B. 6692 Bill to Prevent Frivolous Litigation Part II: Supplemental Testimony

     On Monday CT Attorney Wyatt Kopp proposed legislation in front of the Judiciary Committee to curb the state taxpayers from financing frivolous litigation through court fee waivers. The proposed bill in its entirely is discussed in our blog post linked below. http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/04/hb-6692-bill-to-prevent-frivolous.html     Kopp encourages people w ho support this to write the Connecticut Judiciary Committee an e-mail supporting HB 6692. The e-mail address for the Judiciary Committee is Jud.testimony@cga.ct.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RAISED H.B. 6992

I wanted to thank the Judiciary Committee for hearing my testimony on H.B. 6692 which would reform the present fee waiver system.  Rep. Ritter made a very interesting comment during the testimony when he noted that it is difficult to determine which cases are frivolous.  The wisdom of the proposed reform is that it takes that determination out of the hands of third parties and places it on the litigants themselves to make that determination.  

An indigent litigant, under the proposed reform, would simply have to ask themselves whether the case is worth doing the community service to pursue.  In that sense, the reform offers an alternative that achieves the very some consideration that a litigant who is not eligible for a fee waiver has to make.  The proposed reform takes the determination of whether a case is frivolous and places it where it belongs which is on the litigant themselves rather than third parties.  When access to the system is completely free, there is no incentive whatsoever for a litigant to self-regulate their claims.

The presence of court fees serve the dual purpose of both funding the court and encouraging litigants to make a determination of whether a case is worth the fees to file it.  In this sense, the presence of fees encourages the self-regulation of claims.  On an even more general level, money results in the allocation of scarce resources and it sets priorities.   It is because of the presence of fees in the system, for those who do pay, that you do not see any cases of frivolous litigation by persons or businesses who do have to pay the fees.   Frivolous litigation is not a problem among persons and businesses paying the fees for the very reason that they have to ask themselves, is this case worth the initial investment of fees to file it?

The significance of Rep. Ritter’s comments are that they support H.B. 6692 for the very reason that the litigants themselves should be determining whether their claims are frivolous and the present system has taken away all the incentives to do so.  As a result, third parties such as judges are called on to make that determination because the litigants themselves are encouraged by the present system to file claims for any petty grievance no matter how small because it is free.

H.B. 6692 Bill to Prevent Frivolous Litigation Being Heard Monday

Celebrate tax deadline day by doing something PROACTIVE! Email today!
Wyatt Kopp has proposed legislation being heard tomorrow Monday April 16th to curb the state taxpayers from financing frivolous litigation through court fee waivers.

 Kopp encourages people w ho support this to write the Connecticut Judiciary Committee an e-mail supporting HB 6692. The e-mail address for the Judiciary Committee is Jud.testimony@cga.ct.gov

If its passed by the general assembly this session, it would require Pro Se plaintiffs to earn their fee waiver for litigation by working community service. Kopp, a lawyer, agrees that the right to access the courts fundamental, and therefore it’s listed specifically in Connecticut’s constitution. Because of this belief, Kopp is concerned is that many lawsuits are being filed just for the sake of filing them because of the broken fee waiver system, and this is resulting in a burden on the courts with frivolous claims. This burden prevents legitimate cases from being heard in a timely manner.

Kopp cites a case where a CT woman filed 70 lawsuits in 2 years all funded by taxpayers via fee waivers. In the article below, he explains in greater detail what he hopes to accomplish with the bill.

http://kwgn.com/2013/02/20/connecticut-woman-has-filed-70-lawsuits-in-2-years-2/

WYATT W. KOPP

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RAISED H.B. 6692

HEARING DATE: APRIL 15, 2013 – JOINT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

To the Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:

It is a pleasure to provide a written submission and to appear before the committee in support of raised bill H.B. 6692.  At the outset, it should be noted that this submission summarizes the issues and arguments favoring H.B. 6692.  There are no attachments, but an e-mailed version to judtestimony@cga.ct.gov has the attachments and is available to the members.  Also, it has come to my attention that some proponents of this bill had to e-mail their support to the committee as they were not aware it was raised until recently.

I.  INTRODUCTION

The fee waiver, as established by C.G.S. §52-259b, is intended to provide court access to persons who would otherwise be deprived of such access due to lack of funds.  Yet, despite its laudable intent, the present court fee waiver system has created a class of persons that have substantially greater access to the courts than those who are not eligible for fee waivers.   The court fee waiver system has incentivized frivolous litigation because litigants literally have nothing to lose in filing lawsuits at the “drop of a hat.”  The impact of the frivolous litigation encouraged by the present fee waiver system is equally felt in business, non-profit agencies and local governments who have to allocate ever increasingly scarce money and resources toward wasteful litigation instead of allocating it in areas that could really make a significant positive difference in the community and in individual lives.

The sensible reforms of raised bill H.B. 6692 leave the fee waiver intact while, at the same time, providing a simple and fair mechanism to end its abuses.  The proposed reform has broad appeal because it advances issues in which there is common ground.  All members of the General Assembly, no matter what their politics are, want to see scarce taxpayer resources allocated where they can do the greatest good in individual lives as well as keeping our businesses competitive and giving our municipalities as many tools as possible to provide resources in communities across the state.  In short, there is universal agreement that taxpayers should be given the greatest “bang for their buck.”  The community service requirement of H.B. 6692 is both flexible and sensible.  It empowers the courts with the discretion to weigh individual circumstances and waive community service if it presents an individual hardship.  The community service component will withstand legal scrutiny because no court has ever held that money is the exclusive method of payment for court filing fees and service of process fees.  It is fitting that the state that established the legal precedent for the waiver should have this unique opportunity to reform it.

Having briefly introduced the issue, it is important to consider specific examples of abuse to illustrate the need to reform C.G.S. 52-259b.

II. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF RAISED BILL H. B. 6992

The flaws in the present fee waiver system are evidence in the face of abuses that are extremely costly to defendant individuals, businesses and municipalities who are relying on the General Assembly for relief from the unintended consequences of C.G.S. § 52-259b.  In order to fully comprehend the impact of abuses in the fee waiver system, and the need for reform, it is important to consider specific cases that illustrate the wasteful litigation that is promoted by the present system.

A. CECELIA LEBBY HAS LITIGATED EIGHTY-ONE SEPARATE CIVIL ACTIONS FOR MONEY DAMAGES AND FORTY-FOUR APPEALS ON FEE WAIVERS.

In the Judicial District of New Britain, Cecelia Lebby has used fee waivers to file a total of eighty-one civil seeking money damages.  In today’s value, the lost filing fees, at $350 for each complaint, are $28,350.  She has also filed forty-four separate appeals which, at $250 for each appeal, total $11,000 in lost filing fees.  She has sued in excess of two-hundred defendants and service of process fees range from $30-$40 for each service.  To serve two-hundred defendants at $30 each costs $6,000.  The state has, therefore, lost about $45,350 in just filing and service of process fees alone.