Docket entry 41, 9 April 2025 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. REPLY by Kelly Bland to response to motion[40] (Perrong, Andrew)
McCombs has relied on made-up, bogus legal citations in his opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion, leading to wasted resources and docket clutter.
This fact can be ascertained from material misrepresentations in at least four authorities Mr. McCombs has filed with this Court, including one authority which reflects a textbook AI “hallucination,” as well as three fabricated quotations. Such persistent obstinance and vituperative conduct further counsels that striking Mr.
Mr. McCombs cites to four cases in his brief in opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion which bear textbook indicia that they were generated by a “hallucinating” AI. At least one opinion cited is completely fabricated and does not exist, and three more do not contain the quotations or propositions claimed, which run contrary to existing law.
17, 2025). Multiple Courts to consider the issue have concluded that citing fake cases, including those generated as “hallucinations” by an AI platform, as Plaintiff suspects occurred here, warranted sanctions. See id; Wadsworth v.
In Dehghani v. Castro, for instance, the court sanctioned a litigant who cited to “at least six non-existent cases . . . [that were] likely the handiwork of a ChatGPT or similar artificial intelligence (AI) program’s hallucinations.” No.
Here, Mr. McCombs has cited to four non-existent, fabricated authorities in his opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion, further demonstrating why the relief requested therein is eminently appropriate and the motion ought to be granted for the reasons articulated therein. The four fake opinions cited by Mr.
Vito, that case was proceeding in the Middle District of Georgia, not the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Simply put, the made-up case of “Otero v. Vito” cannot stand for the proposition that a filing should not be stricken unless it has “no bearing” on the case or would cause undue prejudice, not only because the case does not exist, but because that position runs contrary to well-established law.
Mr. McCombs also misattributes quotations that Plaintiff suspects were generated by a hallucinating AI in several cases in that most of the words cited in them, let alone the complete quotations themselves, appear nowhere in the cited cases. More concerningly, those quotations appear to run contrary to established law.