Also known as: non-frivolous · nonfrivolous · colorable · meritorious
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal contention that rests on existing law or on a good-faith argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.
Consumers Garcia and Lee filed a class action against ShopMax alleging nationwide liability from a single misleading price tag. Their attorney Lopez advanced an untested theory that consumer contracts form at the corporate level upon general advertising. ShopMax sought Rule 11 sanctions on the ground that the theory lacked support. The court denied sanctions because the argument constituted a nonfrivolous effort to reshape existing contract doctrine.
Defense counsel for Nolan Nunez in a felony prosecution filed a motion contesting every element of the charged offense. The prosecutor moved for sanctions under the professional conduct rules, claiming the motion lacked factual support. The court denied sanctions because a criminal defense attorney may require the state to prove each element even when the defense rests on a nonfrivolous legal position.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nimbus Cloud served discovery requests on Navarro Industries seeking documents to support a novel theory of liability for open-source code customization. Navarro Industries moved for sanctions under Rule 26, arguing the requests lacked legal grounding. The court denied sanctions because the requests advanced a nonfrivolous argument for extending existing intellectual property doctrine.
No. The standard permits a good-faith argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law even if no court has yet adopted the position. A contention is sanctionable only when no reasonable lawyer could view it as legally supportable after reasonable inquiry.
Supporting sources
Yes. A claim or defense is not frivolous merely because the lawyer lacks all facts at the time of filing. The rules expressly allow contentions that will likely gain evidentiary support after reasonable investigation or discovery.
Supporting sources
Yes. The certification rules separately prohibit presenting any paper for an improper purpose such as harassment, unnecessary delay, or needlessly increasing litigation costs. A court may impose sanctions on that ground regardless of whether the legal arguments themselves have a reasonable basis.
Supporting sources
No. The test is objective. A lawyer must certify after reasonable inquiry that the contention is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law. Subjective good faith alone does not satisfy the standard.
Supporting sources