Also known as: baseless repetitive claim · frivolous claims · vexatious claims
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A series of meritless legal assertions filed repeatedly without regard to their validity in order to burden opponents or delay proceedings.
Blackwood Technologies sued Birchwood Apparel alleging multiple overlapping contract and antitrust theories in a sprawling complaint. At the initial pretrial conference the judge directed counsel to identify which theories rested on concrete facts and to withdraw those lacking support. Birchwood dropped the duplicative counts after the discussion, allowing the case to proceed only on the core breach allegations.
Bristol Steel filed successive administrative complaints against Brighton Manufacturing alleging the same unproven safety violations. Each filing required Brighton to respond and attend hearings even though prior complaints had been dismissed for lack of evidence. The pattern consumed resources and postponed Brighton's product launch without advancing any meritorious claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The court examines whether the assertions lack factual or legal footing and appear designed to complicate rather than resolve the dispute. Counsel must explain the support for each theory and drop those that are duplicative or speculative. This process narrows the case to genuine issues.
Supporting sources
The pattern shows filings made without regard to merits and intended to tie up the process rather than win on substance. Courts look for repeated assertions already rejected or unsupported by evidence. The goal is obstruction rather than vindication of rights.
Supporting sources
Yes. The authority under the pretrial rules extends to the final conference and permits pruning of duplicative or meritless positions once the record reveals their weakness. The court may direct consolidation or withdrawal to focus the trial.
Supporting sources