frivolous claim in District of Columbia

2024But “the standards for a showing of bad faith” under either scenario “are necessarily stringent, precluding awards for attorneys’ fees in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.” Jung, 844 A.2d at 1108 .

2009The Petition, however, made no mention either of the 2001 documents, or even of the estate-planning documents that Mr. Anderson knew had been “rewritten.” 14 On these facts, one might conclude that Mr. Anderson initiated the lawsuit in bad faith — ie., that he filed a frivolous claim for improper reasons, see Jung, 844 A.2d at 1108 , and that in failing to advise the court at the outset of any of the estate-planning documents, Mr. Anderson worked a fraud on the court.

2008A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his child, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), and prohibiting visitation certainly disrupts and, if the ban is prolonged, may destroy, the parent-child relationship.

2008A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his child, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), and prohibiting visitation certainly disrupts and, if the ban is prolonged, may destroy, the parent-child relationship.

2024The “conduct justifying an award of attorney[s’] fees under the bad faith exception may be found either in the filing of a frivolous claim or in the manner in which a properly filed claim is subsequently litigated.” Hundley, 18 A.3d at 810 .

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) (Synanon I), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiffs argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not “subsume or abrogate” the trial court’s “inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) ( Synanon I ), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiff's argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not "subsume or abrogate" the trial court's "inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice." Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) (Synanon I), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiffs argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not “subsume or abrogate” the trial court’s “inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) ( Synanon I ), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiff's argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not "subsume or abrogate" the trial court's "inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice." Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) (Synanon I), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiffs argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not “subsume or abrogate” the trial court’s “inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) ( Synanon I ), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiff's argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not "subsume or abrogate" the trial court's "inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice." Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) (Synanon I), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiffs argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not “subsume or abrogate” the trial court’s “inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).

2000In fact, in Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.) ( Synanon I ), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815 , 107 S.Ct. 69 , 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986), we specifically rejected the plaintiff's argument that its suit could not be dismissed for bad faith conduct during discovery until judgment was rendered, stating that the civil rules do not "subsume or abrogate" the trial court's "inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice." Id. at 1264 (citation omitted).