Rádio Decidendi Discusses Binding Precedent on Combating Abusive Litigation

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

In Topic 1.198 of its repetitive appeals docket, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice held that a judge may require a plaintiff to amend the complaint when there are signs of abusive litigation, so long as the order is reasoned and proportionate and does not violate access to justice.

What the STJ (Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) Decided in Topic 1.198

The Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice set a binding thesis on how to handle mass-filed lawsuits that show signs of weak evidence. Under this binding precedent, a judge may order the complaint to be amended whenever the judge identifies concrete signs of procedural abuse. The plaintiff must then demonstrate a legal interest in bringing the claim and the authenticity of the claim asserted.

The order must be reasoned, must be reasonable, and must respect the rules on allocating the burden of proof set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. A judge may not automatically presume abuse, nor shift evidentiary burdens on the court’s own initiative without legal basis. Doing so would undermine the parity between the parties.

The thesis responds to the growing volume of repetitive lawsuits that overload the courts. Many of them are marked by generic powers of attorney, standardized narratives, and a lack of even the minimum documents proving the legal relationship in dispute.

The ruling consolidated guidance that various panels of the court had already been applying in individual cases. That guidance now carries the status of a qualified thesis that binds the entire Brazilian judiciary. This uniformity removes the uncertainty caused by conflicting decisions among judicial districts and regions. It also gives litigants a clear standard on the limits of a judge’s preliminary review of the complaint.

Signs That Justify Requiring an Amendment

The precedent does not provide an exhaustive list. However, the court’s case law has been consolidating elements that, taken together, justify the judge’s precautionary measure. Among them are powers of attorney without notarized signatures in property-related claims, the absence of documents proving the contract allegedly in dispute, and complaints that are identical in lawsuits filed by high-volume law firms.

Other relevant signs include mechanically repeating legal arguments with no adaptation to the specific case, and listing a generic address, or one shared by hundreds of plaintiffs. When a judge identifies these circumstances, the judge must state them expressly in the order requiring the amendment. Otherwise, the order is void for lack of reasoning.

The list also extends to situations in which plaintiffs say they did not know the lawsuit had been filed. It covers claims in which the amount in dispute is set at a uniform level with no connection to each plaintiff’s actual circumstances. And it covers cases in which the personal documents submitted show obvious inconsistencies, such as incompatible dates, mismatched signatures, or proof of residence from places far from the chosen venue.

A plaintiff ordered to amend the complaint has the right to produce the required documents or to give a plausible reason why that is not possible. Only after that opportunity may the judge dismiss the case without reaching the merits or impose the penalties provided for bad-faith litigation.

A judge may not automatically presume abuse, nor shift evidentiary burdens on the court’s own initiative without legal basis. Doing so would undermine the parity between the parties.

Practical Impact on Lawyers and Courts

For lawyers who handle mass litigation, the precedent reinforces the need to properly support each claim, even when the legal theory can be replicated. A complaint must now show at least a minimum of individualization: a clear identification of the legal relationship, consistent personal documents, and proof of a genuine legal interest in bringing the claim.

For the courts, the thesis works as a qualified screening tool. It lets them separate legitimate claims, even standardized ones, from those that use the judicial system without minimal support. This approach preserves the principle of procedural cooperation set out in Article 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and encourages a ruling on the merits when a real dispute exists.

Consolidating this position in a repetitive appeal gives legal certainty to trial judges. They now have clear guideposts for conducting a preliminary review of the complaint without denying the defendant’s right to a defense.

Court clerks’ offices and administrative staff are also likely to benefit from the new guidance. Qualified screening reduces the number of cases that move forward without the minimum conditions to proceed. That directly affects how long genuinely disputed cases take and how court staff and other resources are allocated.

Frequently Asked Questions

How far does Topic 1.198 of the STJ bind other courts?

Because the thesis was set in a repetitive appeal, it binds judges and courts throughout Brazil under Article 927 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A judge who rules to the contrary risks having the decision reversed through the available appeals. In specific situations, this includes a reclamação (a special petition to enforce the court’s authority) filed directly with the Superior Court of Justice.

How must a judge justify an order to amend the complaint?

The order must point to the specific signs of abusive litigation found in the case file. It must also state which additional documents or clarifications are required and set a reasonable deadline for compliance. Generic orders based only on the repetitive nature of the lawsuit, without showing case-specific elements, may be challenged for inadequate reasoning.

What should a plaintiff do to avoid having the case dismissed?

Before filing, you should gather up-to-date personal documents, proof of the legal relationship in dispute, and a power of attorney with specific powers for the claim being filed. If you are notified to amend the complaint, you must comply within the deadline. You should either submit the requested materials or explain, with supporting reasons, why you cannot produce them at that stage of the case.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.