Docket entry 137, 16 June 2026 · source
Docket text. TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the affidavit filed by pro se Plaintiff on June 10, 2026. Plaintiff attests under the penalty of perjury that he "has held a law degree for more than fifteen years" and he is "solely responsible for all factual representations, legal arguments, citations, quotations, and record references contained in the filing." (ECF 136.) Courts around the country and in this District have imposed sanctions on attorneys who include AI-hallucinated opinions in their court filings. "Courts have imposed monetary fines ranging from $1,000 to up to $6,000, among other sanctions, on attorneys who violated Rule 11 by including AI hallucinated legal authority and propositions." OTG New York, Inc. v. OTTOGI America, Inc., No. 24-7209, 2025 WL 2671460, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2025) (citing five cases where federal courts imposed monetary sanctions on attorneys who used fabricated cases in their court filings). Because Plaintiff is an experienced lawyer, any future court filings submitted by Plaintiff that contain AI-hallucinated cases will result in Plaintiff's Complaint being dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, upon a future showing that Plaintiff has included AI-hallucinated cases in filings before this Court, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause as to why Rule 11(b) sanctions should not be imposed on him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 6/16/2026. (sms) (Entered: 06/16/2026)
Plaintiff attests under the penalty of perjury that he "has held a law degree for more than fifteen years" and he is "solely responsible for all factual representations, legal arguments, citations, quotations, and record references contained in the filing." (ECF 136.) Courts around the country and in this District have imposed sanctions on attorneys who include AI-hallucinated opinions in their court filings.
Sept. 18, 2025) (citing five cases where federal courts imposed monetary sanctions on attorneys who used fabricated cases in their court filings). Because Plaintiff is an experienced lawyer, any future court filings submitted by Plaintiff that contain AI-hallucinated cases will result in Plaintiff's Complaint being dismissed with prejudice.
Because Plaintiff is an experienced lawyer, any future court filings submitted by Plaintiff that contain AI-hallucinated cases will result in Plaintiff's Complaint being dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, upon a future showing that Plaintiff has included AI-hallucinated cases in filings before this Court, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause as to why Rule 11(b) sanctions should not be imposed on him pursuant to Fed. R.