Frivolous Suits in PA & the Dragonetti Act

Our Pittsburgh trial lawyers handle claims against those whose frivolous civil lawsuits, which can violate PA’s Dragonetti Act (or “WUCP” discussed below), PA’s Rule 1023.1 or common law abuse of process.  In fact, baseless suits often cause stress, lost time, business interruption, the expense of attorney fees, and more for the victim.

Serious stuff.

 

Improper Civil Lawsuits in Pennsylvania:

The Three Tools Available to Victims in 

Most lawsuits are filed in good faith. People have disputes, and courts exist to resolve them. Sometimes, however, a party files or pursues claims that lack a proper legal basis, uses litigation as a weapon, or engages in conduct designed to harass, intimidate, or pressure an opponent rather than legitimately resolve a dispute.

Pennsylvania law recognizes that improper litigation can cause real harm. Defending against a meritless lawsuit can result in attorney’s fees, lost time, business interruption, emotional distress, reputational harm, and significant financial loss.

Fortunately, Pennsylvania law provides several remedies for victims of improper civil proceedings.

This article focuses on the three primary tools available in Pennsylvania state court:

1. Rule 1023.1 sanctions;
2. Abuse of Process claims; and
3. Claims under Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act.

Although these remedies sometimes overlap, they serve different purposes and require different proof.

A Brief Word About Federal Rule 11

Many lawyers are familiar with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which authorizes sanctions for filings that lack factual or legal support.

Pennsylvania’s counterpart is Rule 1023.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Because this article focuses on Pennsylvania state-court litigation, we will discuss Rule 1023.1 rather than Federal Rule 11. The concepts are similar, but they are not identical.

Tool Number One Rule 1023.1 Sanctions

Rule 1023.1 is Pennsylvania’s primary mechanism for policing frivolous filings within an active lawsuit.

Whenever an attorney signs a pleading, motion, or other filing, that signature certifies that:

• The filing is not being presented for an improper purpose;
• The legal arguments are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law;
• The factual allegations have evidentiary support or are likely to obtain support through discovery; and
• The factual denials are reasonably based.

What Must Be Proven?

Unlike abuse of process or Dragonetti claims, Rule 1023.1 does not require proof of malice, bad faith, or an ulterior motive.

The focus is largely objective.

The question is whether a reasonable attorney conducted an adequate investigation and possessed a reasonable basis in law and fact for making the filing.

A filing can violate Rule 1023.1 even if the attorney genuinely believed he or she was correct.

The Safe Harbor Requirement

One of the most important aspects of Rule 1023.1 is the “safe harbor” provision.

Before filing a sanctions motion with the court, the moving party generally must first serve the motion on the opposing side and provide an opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged filing.

The purpose is to encourage lawyers to reevaluate and withdraw unsupported claims before sanctions become necessary.

Available Remedies

Rule 1023.1 does not create a claim for damages.

Instead, it authorizes sanctions designed to deter misconduct.

Possible sanctions include:

• Attorney’s fees;
• Litigation costs;
• Striking pleadings;
• Nonmonetary directives;
• Monetary penalties payable to the court; and
• Other appropriate sanctions.

Importantly, Rule 1023.1 operates within the existing lawsuit. It does not require a separate civil action.

Tool Number Two: Abuse of Process

Abuse of process is a common-law tort recognized in Pennsylvania. Unlike Rule 1023.1, abuse of process is not primarily concerned with whether a claim was legally weak or factually unsupported.

Instead, abuse of process focuses on why legal procedures were used.

Pennsylvania courts have long described abuse of process as the use of legal process primarily for a purpose for which it was not designed.

Elements of Abuse of Process

Although the precise wording varies among cases, a plaintiff generally must prove:

1. The defendant used legal process against the plaintiff;
2. The defendant used that process primarily for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was designed; and
3. The plaintiff suffered harm as a result.

What Makes Abuse of Process Different?

The critical issue is the improper purpose.

For example, legal process may be abused when it is used primarily to:

• Harass an opponent;
• Extort money;
• Coerce conduct unrelated to the merits of the lawsuit;
• Damage a business competitor; or
• Obtain leverage unrelated to the legal dispute itself.

The mere filing of a weak lawsuit is generally not enough.

The plaintiff must prove that legal procedures were being used as a weapon to accomplish some collateral objective.

Statute of Limitations

Abuse of process claims are generally governed by the two-year statute of limitations found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524.

Unlike Dragonetti claims, abuse-of-process claims may accrue before the underlying litigation ends if the misuse of process has already caused injury.

Available Damages

Because abuse of process is a tort claim, a successful plaintiff may recover:

• Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses where recoverable;
• Economic losses;
• Lost business opportunities;
• Reputational harm;
• Emotional distress damages where appropriate; and
• Punitive damages in cases involving outrageous conduct.

A separate lawsuit must be filed to pursue these damages.

Tool Number Three: The Dragonetti Act

The third remedy is Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings Act (“WUCP”), commonly known as the Dragonetti Act. The Act is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8351-8354. The Dragonetti Act replaced much of the old common-law action for malicious use of civil proceedings and expanded protection for victims of baseless litigation.   

In 1980, the legislature in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania legislature enacted what is now referred to as the Dragonetti Act.  This replaces the previous cause of action for “malicious use of process” or “malicious prosecution.” At common law, in order to prevail against someone who had wrongfully pursued civil or criminal process against him, the Plaintiff had to establish not merely a malicious motive, but also an arrest of one’s person or seizure of his property. Thus, the Dragonetti Act expands the availability of the cause of action by relaxing the standard of proof from malice to gross negligence, and by making the remedy available to those who have suffered injury short of the arrest of their person or the seizure of their property. See § 8351(b).  

Elements of a Dragonetti Claim

The key provision of the Act, entitled “Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings,” is codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a) and provides as follows:  

A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings may be liable if:

1. The person acted in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause; but simply suing the wrong party by accident will not likely create liability, unless the Plaintiff had acted with gross negligence or a reckless disregard for the truth; 
2. The proceedings were initiated or continued primarily for a purpose other than securing proper adjudication of the claim; and
3. The proceedings terminated in favor of the person against whom they were brought.  

The favorable-termination requirement is critical.  

But note, our appellate courts have opined: 

When considering the question of ‘favorable termination’ [under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8354(2)], whether a withdrawal or abandonment constitutes a favorable, final termination of the case against who the proceedings are brought initially depends on the circumstances under which the proceedings are withdrawn.

A withdrawal of proceedings stemming from a compromise or agreement does not, as a matter of law, constitute a termination favorable to the party against whom proceedings have been brought originally.” D’Elia v. Folino, 933 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing Rosenfield v. Pennsylvania Auto. Insurance Plan, 636 A.2d 1138, 1142 (Pa. Super. 1994).   

Available Damages

The Dragonetti Act permits recovery of damages caused by the wrongful civil proceedings, including:

• Attorney’s fees;
• Litigation expenses;
• Financial losses;
• Harm to reputation;
• Emotional distress damages where appropriate; and
• Punitive damages in appropriate cases.

Both attorneys and clients may face liability under the Act.

Why the Dragonetti Act Is Different

Dragonetti focuses on whether the lawsuit should have been brought or continued in the first place. However, abuse of process focuses on whether legal procedures were later used for an improper purpose.

This presents and important distinction.  

A lawsuit may support a Dragonetti claim because it lacked probable cause from the outset.

A lawsuit may support an abuse-of-process claim because legal procedures were later used as a weapon, even if the lawsuit itself was not initially frivolous.

Comparing the Three Remedies

The easiest way to understand these remedies is to focus on what each one targets.

Rule 1023.1

Rule 1023.1 asks:

“Did the lawyer or party file something that lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis?”

The remedy is sanctions within the existing lawsuit.

Abuse of Process

Abuse of process asks:

“Was legal process used as a weapon to accomplish an improper collateral objective?”

The remedy is a separate tort action for damages.

Dragonetti Act

Dragonetti asks:      

“Should this lawsuit have been brought or continued at all? In other words, was the lawsuit pro pertly researched taking into account known facts and law prior to filing suit?  Or, was the suit filed for some other harassing or reckless purpose?”          

The remedy is a separate statutory action for damages after the underlying litigation ends favorably for the defendant.

A Recent Superior Court Reminder

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Carmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Goldin, No. 420 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. filed June 9, 2026) serves as a useful reminder of these principles. There, the court examined counterclaims that had been asserted under theories including breach of contract and conversion. The court concluded that questions fact existed whether a Dragonetti / WUCP claim could be dismissed, thereby reversing the trial court’s decision to dismiss the claim.  For more, click here.                  

Frequently Asked Questions 

What is the difference between Dragonetti and abuse of process?  

Dragonetti focuses on the wrongful filing or continuation of litigation. Abuse of process focuses on the misuse of legal procedures for an improper purpose.             

What is the difference between Rule 1023.1 and Dragonetti?

Rule 1023.1 is a sanctions procedure used inside an active lawsuit. Dragonetti is a separate civil lawsuit seeking damages after the underlying case ends.

What is the difference between Rule 1023.1 and abuse of process?

Rule 1023.1 focuses on whether a filing lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis. Abuse of process focuses on whether legal process was used primarily for an improper purpose.

Does every losing lawsuit violate the Dragonetti Act?

No. The Act requires more than losing. The plaintiff generally must show a lack of probable cause or gross negligence, improper purpose, and favorable termination.

Does every frivolous filing constitute abuse of process?

No. Abuse of process generally requires proof that legal procedures were used primarily to accomplish an improper collateral objective.

What is the statute of limitations for abuse of process?

Generally, two years under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524.

What is the statute of limitations for a Dragonetti claim?

Generally, two years, beginning after the underlying proceedings terminate favorably to the defendant.

Can both the attorney and client be liable?

Yes. Depending on the facts, both may face liability under the Dragonetti Act or for abuse of process. Rule 1023.1 often focuses on the attorney who signed the filing.

Are punitive damages available?

Potentially yes. Punitive damages may be available in abuse-of-process and Dragonetti cases involving sufficiently outrageous, intentional, or reckless conduct.

Can a Dragonetti or abuse-of-process judgment be discharged in bankruptcy?

Not necessarily. Because these claims often involve intentional or reckless misconduct, a prevailing plaintiff may argue that the judgment falls within federal bankruptcy exceptions for willful and malicious injury. The outcome depends on the facts and federal bankruptcy law.

Will insurance cover a Dragonetti or abuse-of-process judgment?

Often not. Many liability policies exclude intentional misconduct, malicious conduct, and punitive damages. Coverage depends on the policy language, the allegations asserted, and the findings ultimately made by the court.

A Story on The Lighter Side – Referees Sued Over a Bad Call!?

in 2013. a person decided to sue referees in federal court because the refs had made a bad call.

Yes, this lawsuit actually happened..    

An inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mercer filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  What did he want? He sought an injunction to remedy this wrong, perpetrated by the refs, claiming they made a bad call, sending the “wrong team” into the playoffs.    

The inmate offered the court two choices:

1. Allow Succop (the Kansas City kicker) to re-kick the field goal attempt, or
2. Declare the Steelers the sixth seed in the AFC playoffs.  

Only, the claim was baseless and the court had no such power to “declare” anything in the NFL.  

This case was the definition of abuse of process, screaming for sanctions under Rule 11 in federal court, or other sanctions if it were in PA state court.   

Conclusion

Pennsylvania law recognizes that improper civil litigation can cause substantial harm. For that reason, victims of abusive litigation practices may have several remedies available.

Rule 1023.1 sanctions allow trial courts to police frivolous filings while a case is pending. Abuse-of-process claims provide a remedy when legal procedures are used as a weapon to achieve an improper purpose. The Dragonetti Act allows victims to recover damages when civil proceedings are initiated or continued without probable cause and for an improper purpose.

Although these remedies overlap in some circumstances, they serve different functions and require different proof. Understanding the distinctions can help litigants and attorneys evaluate their rights when confronted with improper civil proceedings in Pennsylvania courts.

Areas of Law We Handle

While the above story may be humorous, frivolous suits are no laughing matter for the victims, who often suffer stress, aggravation, psychological harm, damage to reputation, lost time, and the expense of steep legal fees in defense of such frivolous actions.  Fortunately, Pennsylvania law allows the victim to recover all of the above.  

Call our attorneys in Pittsburgh any time for a free consultation.     

 

New Number: 412.342.0992

Use our easy Contact Form  

Our Location