Allbaugh v. University of Scranton

Docket entry 29, 31 October 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages

Docket text. MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 22 First MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Lonnie Allbaugh. Signed by Honorable Karoline Mehalchick on 10/31/2025. (cw)

14-1). In that memorandum, Allbaugh provided the following fictitious citation: Dreibelbis v. City of Reading, No.

III. DISCUSSION In his motion for reconsideration , Allbaugh avers that the Court should either eliminate or reduce the sanction it imposed because his erroneous citation was not in bad faith, his pro se status merits mitigation, the sanction is not narrowly tailored to deter future misconduct, and other district courts have declined to impose sanctions where a party cited to nonexistent cases. (Doc.

22). 5 artificial intelligence but also for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 , which requires parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs that rely on fictitious cases. (Doc.

Further, this matter has been referred to Judge Schwab for the issuance of a nother report and recommendation, and if Judge Schwab recommends the Court grant the University of Scranton’s motion to dismiss, Allbaugh will have the opportunity to file an objection under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636. Allbaugh’s nonexistent citation appeared in an objection to a report and recommendation. (Doc.

22). The Court previously advised Allbaugh that if he had complied with Local Rule 7.8(a), he would have discovered that he cited to a fictitious unreported case. (Doc.

Docket entry 19, 28 August 2025 · source · PDF · 16 pages

Docket text. MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Karoline Mehalchick on 8/28/25. (dj)

14-1) will be OVERRULED. The Court further finds that Allbaugh has violated this Court’s Local Rules, the undersigned’s preferences and orders on the use of generative artificial intelligence, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by citing to non-existent legal authority generated by artificial intelligence. The Court will SANCTION Allbaugh.

15, at 14). The Court conducted a search for this case and similarly could not find it. On June 25, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause ordering Allbaugh to provide an explanation for why the potentially fictitious citation did not violate this Court’s standing order on the use of generative artificial intelligence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.

15, at 7-11). The University of Scranton also notes that Allbaugh relies on a fictitious citation in violation of this Court’s standing order on the use of generative AI and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ( Doc.

15, at 14-15 ). The Court will first assess Allbaugh’s objection to the Report and then turn to Allbaugh’s fictitious citation. A.

27, 2025) (finding that an attorney proceeding as a pro se plaintiff was not entitled to the same deference as an ordinary pro se plaintiff when interpreting their filings). Rule 11 does not prohibit the use of generative AI, however, it does require parties to verify that they are not submitting briefs to the Court which rely on fictitious cases. See Mata v.

3d 443, 464-66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning a party for citing to fictitious cases generated by AI); see also Bunce v. Visual Tech.

3d at 464 ; see also Bunce, 2025 WL 662398 , at *4. When calculating sanctions, courts typically fine parties who provide AI generated fictitious citations within the range of $1,000 to $6,000. See Mata, 678 F.

Allbaugh admits that his citation to Dreibelbis v. City of Reading was a fictitious citation. (Doc.