Fox v. Vice (10-114)

argument 10-114

Fox v. Vice

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue the Court is addressing in Fox v. Vice?

John G. Roberts 0:03

We'll hear argument next in case ten eleven four Fox versus Weiss. Mr. Rosencrantz?

Mr. Rosenkrantz 0:10

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Mr Fox has rock solid legal claims against a police chief, based upon facts that were strong enough to send that police chief to prison. Yet he's been ordered to pay all of the attorneys' fees for an entire two year course of a litigation. Because his lawyers decided to plead and then drop a single federal theory. That award is wrong and it's not what Congress intended. Congress wanted to protect defendants from the lying or the vexatious plaintiff who shouldn't be in court at all.

Stephen G. Breyer 0:49

Do we take the case on the assumption? Um You're Your predecessor and you may disagree, but do we take the case on the assumption that this was a frivolous Cause of action.

Mr. Rosenkrantz 1:04

Your Honor, the court took the case on the assumption that the legal theory was frivolous, but that the underlying cause of action, which is to say the operative facts were meritorious, and in fact they are meritorious. They're going to trial in two weeks. And so this is a wrongdoing defendant against whom was pled a legal theory that we now assume

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:26

was

Mr. Rosenkrantz 1:27

frivolous.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:27

Well, we well I mean uh by my goodness, you you could say the same underlying facts uh justify uh, you know, a suit for uh uh for libel and and also justify uh a a a much uh a a much greater suit. I'm I'm not sure that that we look to simply the underlying facts. We look to what kind of liability was sought to be imposed upon the defendant. That's what determines how much money the defendant is willing to pay for his lawyer and how much he has to expend in in defending.

Mr. Rosenkrantz 2:02

Your Honor, in this case the liability was far greater for the State Court claims than for the nineteen eighty-three claims. But Congress was concerned. Well well

Stephen G. Breyer 2:11

that that's not quite right. To the extent they overlap. Uh even on the theory that the night the federal claims were presented. Uh the uh plaintiff below was seeking attorneys fees. Yes,

Mr. Rosenkrantz 2:26

right.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:28

So the city's liability would be greater.

Mr. Rosenkrantz 2:29

That was one incremental increase. But it the the liability in this case on the constitutional claim was for and and the reason it was found to be frivolous was that he was seeking uh uh liability on a constitutional claim for being deprived of his right to run for office when in fact he won the office. The intentional infliction of emotional distress, the reputational harm, was far greater.

Samuel A. Alito 2:55

You knew that though from day one. This case is brought in state court. It's removed to federal court. Ultimately the plaintiff says, I recognise that as a matter of law My Nineteen eighty three claim is no good. But The plaintiff didn't say that until Eighteen months after The the transfer. So doesn't have plaintiff have some responsibility for running up all these costs in the federal, burdening the federal court having discovery in federal court instead of saying When defendant um remove the case either dropping the federal claim or conceding at that point that it had no merit so it's only the state claims. I mean, does it doesn't the plaintiff bear responsibility for keeping that case in federal court for eighteen months?

Mr. Rosenkrantz 3:59

Uh the answer is partial responsibility, yes, Your Honor. But let's and I think Your Honor is correct to be looking at the burdens. The burdens of the discovery were all the same. It was the same nucleus of operative fact. Now, if this was indeed frivolous from inception, the defendants could easily have filed a motion to dismiss. It should have taken no time at all. And if there was incremental increase in discovery with respect to the Federal claims, then the defendants have only themselves to blame for not having moved to dismiss early on.

Samuel A. Alito 4:32

had filed uh two sep two actions, the Federal claim in Federal Court, the State claims in State Court. Now the Federal claim is uh handled in the same way that it was here. It's found to be frivolous. Would not the defendants be entitled to all of the time that they spent preparing for the Federal Court case?

Mr. Rosenkrantz 4:53

And they're simultaneous simultaneous, Your Honor.