Berg v. United Airlines

Docket entry 218, 6 February 2026 · source · PDF · 7 pages

Docket text. MINUTE ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel ("Motion for Reconsideration") [Doc. 215 ] is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (or Stay) and Formal Response to the Magistrate Judge's Procedural Warnings; Request for Accommodations [Doc. 216 ] is DENIED; (3) The second, identical version of the Motion for Extension, [Doc. 217 ], is STRICKEN as duplicative; (4) To the extent Plaintiff wishes to object to the filing restriction proposed herein, she may do so by February 17, 2026; and 5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Minute Order to Ms. Berg at the following address: Nonnie Berg 545 West 41st Street #1342 Sioux Falls, SD 57105. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 2/6/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(ggill, )

Both Judge Prose and this Court also warned Ms. Berg that her filings contained erroneous and hallucinated citations consistent with misuse of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), and that a failure to properly check her citations could result in the striking of Ms. Berg’s filings, a filing restriction, or other sanctions.

And although Ms. Berg claims she reviewed the AI model’s output for “accuracy and completeness” before filing, the Motion for Extension cites to two nonexistent cases and wholly misrepresents another.1 [Doc. 216 at 5–7].

And fundamentally, the record demonstrates that this Court has repeatedly accommodated Ms. Berg’s requests for extensions and was clear that no 1 The fictitious cases cited in the Motion for Extension are “Kelley v. United States, 560 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.

See [Doc. 214 at 2 (Judge Prose highlighting fictitious cases cited in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Relief from Order)]; see also [Doc. 212 at 3 (United noting that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief also cites to nonexistent Tenth Circuit opinions)].

Docket entry 214, 28 January 2026 · source · PDF · 3 pages

Docket text. ORDER by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on January 28, 2026. For the reasons stated in the attached, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 185, Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief, ECF No. 191, and Motion for Relief from Order, ECF No. 209, are each DENIED. (sbplc6, )

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery specifically states that no AI was used in drafting the filing, while the other two filings state that Plaintiff personally reviewed the citations provided therein for accuracy. Nonetheless, as Defendant notes, Plaintiff includes citations to seemingly nonexistent cases within her Motion to Compel Discovery at 6 and 8 (“Hernandez”) and Motion for Relief from Order at 4 (“United States v. Miller”).

158, 178. Indeed, at the December 16, 2025 status conference in this matter, the court warned Plaintiff that citing nonexistent cases was a very serious issue, noting that the Tenth Circuit has considered dismissal of an appeal to be an Case No. 1:23-cv-01766-NYW-SBP Document 214 filed 01/28/26 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 3 3 appropriate sanction under similar circumstances.

3, 2025). Accordingly, going forward, the court will consider recommending that this case be dismissed or recommending other, similar sanctions if Plaintiff continues to provide the court with citations to nonexistent cases or otherwise fails to sufficiently review her submissions drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Noting Plaintiff’s history of filing superfluous motions, the fact that discovery closed on March 14, 2025, and the fact that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No.

Docket entry 137, 30 October 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages

Docket text. ORDER The Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 118 ] is ADOPTED . Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal [Doc. 122 ] is CONSTRUED as an objection to the Order and Recommendation and OVERRULED. Both iterat ions of Plaintiff's "Propose[d] Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint and Jury Demand" [Doc. 95 ; Doc. 96 ] are DENIED. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 10/30/2025. (norlin, )For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.

Ms. Berg is expressly advised that continued citations to misstated or nonexistent legal authority may result in more severe sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, up to and including a filing Case No. 1:23-cv-01766-NYW-SBP Document 137 filed 10/30/25 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 6 6 restriction, monetary sanctions , and/or dismissal of this action .

Oct. 23, 2023) (advising plaintiff that “her pro se status will not be tolerated by the Court as an excuse for failing to adhere to this Court ’s rules,” and warning that “ future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as the pleading being stricken, filing restrictions imposed, or the case being dismissed ” (emphasis omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection is respectfully OVERRULED.