Also known as: frivolous or without foundation · frivolous · groundless
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard applied by courts and disciplinary bodies to evaluate whether a claim, defense, or discovery request lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact. The standard permits sanctions, fee shifting to a prevailing defendant, or withdrawal when the position rests on speculation, controlling precedent that squarely bars relief, or no plausible argument for extension of existing doctrine.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francisco Frost retained counsel to sue a major-label artist for infringement after noting that both songs used the same four-chord progression and romantic-loss theme. Counsel filed the complaint without any evidence that the defendant had heard the earlier track and without any shared protectable expression. The filing violated the requirement of a nonfrivolous basis in law and fact.
Highland Aviation asserted industrial-espionage counts against Sigma Jet based solely on conjecture. At the pretrial conference the court struck those counts because they rested on no factual grounding and therefore qualified as frivolous claims subject to elimination.
Isabella served requests for every lab notebook and email from all research divisions over five years without first investigating narrower alternatives. The certification that the requests were supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous extension failed because the demands lacked any plausible proportionality analysis.
Felicia Fuentes sued her employer under Title VII alleging discrimination but presented no evidence that any adverse action occurred because of a protected characteristic. After summary judgment the court awarded fees to the prevailing defendant upon finding that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
Fernando Farrell alleged that telecommunications carriers conspired to restrain trade but pleaded only parallel conduct and a bare assertion of agreement. The complaint failed to state a claim because it lacked any factual context suggesting an actual agreement, rendering the theory frivolous under the governing pleading standard.
Fiona Foster sued high-level officials for constitutional violations arising from detention policies but alleged only that the officials had approved the policies in general terms. The complaint was dismissed because the allegations failed to state a plausible claim that the officials themselves acted with the required discriminatory purpose.
A prevailing defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The standard is objective and does not require proof of subjective bad faith.
Yes. Rule 3.1 expressly allows a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, provided the argument has a nonfrivolous basis in law or fact.
…false. The salutary social value of this rule is preventive in character since it often permits a defamed person to expose the groundless character of a defamatory rumor before harm to the reputation has resulted therefrom." Id. , § 569, comment b, p. 166. If the defamation was not libel but slander, it was actionable per…
…when we explained that something beyond the mere possibility of loss causation must be alleged, lest a plaintiff with "a largely groundless
…or the courts. Finally, the appellant argues that the Act violates the Thirteenth Amendment. This contention is patently frivolous
…discrimination except race. See ibid . In addition lessening the causation standard could also contribute to the filing of
…for fee award absent "special circumstances," but prevailing defendant may obtain fee award only if plaintiff's suit is "
Yes. Rule 16(c)(2)(A) authorizes the court to formulate and simplify the issues and to eliminate frivolous claims or defenses at any pretrial conference.
Yes. Rule 3.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from making a frivolous discovery request or failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a proper request from an opposing party.
A claim supports federal-question jurisdiction if it is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous, even if the ultimate merits remain uncertain. Jurisdiction turns on whether the complaint asserts a nonfrivolous right to relief arising under federal law.