The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 221, 31 December 2025 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Docket text. Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order: Order on Motion for Imposition of Sanctions, 215 . Filed by Wisnovsky Land LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Murphy, Timothy) (Entered: 12/31/2025)
As for the cases cited in plaintiff’s motion, I skimmed past them and presumed they were valid. I had no idea that, as it turned out, the motion contained fictitious case citations. 15.
15. Prior to being notified by defense counsel on May 5, 2025 about the fake case citations contained in plaintiffs’ briefing, I do not recall ever hearing about the danger of “hallucinated cases” being generated by AI. I had never used, and do not use, AI for my legal work.
Ms. Gustitus’ email of May 5, 2025 was the first time that I heard anything about or became aware of citations to fake cases or AI “hallucinated” cases in this federal litigation. 23.
I have never knowingly made a misrepresentation to a client, another attorney, opposing party, or the court. The idea that I would ever be associated in any way with the submission of made-up case law in support of an argument to the court is abhorrent to me. Although I took no part in the citation of fake cases, I apologize to the defendants, opposing counsel, and the court for what occurred during my time as local counsel. /// /// DECLARATION OF TIMONTHY L.
Docket entry 221, 31 December 2025 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Docket text. Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order: Order on Motion for Imposition of Sanctions, 215 . Filed by Wisnovsky Land LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Murphy, Timothy) (Entered: 12/31/2025)
He had no idea whatsoever the motion included fake legal authorities until Saundra Gustitus emailed him on May 5, 2025. In fact, before receiving a copy of defendants’ notice of intent to seek sanctions in May 2025, Respondent does not recall ever hearing about the dangers of “hallucinated cases” being generated by AI. Although Respondent did not draft, sign, file, or advocate for the any of the offending briefs, and had no knowledge of the fake case citations until long after the fact, he understands that the court is considering sanctions against him for failing to “meaningfully participate” in the case as required by LR 83-3.
The case law argued and cited in plaintiffs’ motion were unfamiliar to Respondent, and admittedly he skimmed past them. Respondent had no idea that, as it turned out, the motion contained fictitious case citations. (Id., ¶14) Respondent was not involved whatsoever in the preparation of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
(Id., ¶21.) This was the first time that Respondent learned or heard anything about citations to fake cases in this federal litigation. (Id., ¶22.) In fact, prior to this event, Respondent does not recall ever hearing about the danger of “hallucinated cases” being generated by AI. (Id., ¶15.) On May 7, 2025, Respondent received a letter from Ms.
Mr. Murphy was local counsel of record when Plaintiffs filed their summary judgment briefing and when Defendants responded and replied with notice of Plaintiffs’ apparent use of non-existent cases and fabricated quotations. Mr.
Docket entry 218, 26 December 2025 · source · PDF · 16 pages
Docket text. Report Defendants' Bill of Costs and Reasonable Attorney Fees. Filed by All Defendants. (Gustitus, Sandra) (Entered: 12/26/2025)
Fla. 2025) (awarding attorney fees “for all time spent responding to any filing in which generative AI was used to develop hallucinated cases and fabricated quotations”); Lacey v. State Farm General Ins.
In ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson, the Southern District of Florida awarded $85,567.75 in attorney fees to the defendants “for all time spent responding to any filing in which generative AI was used to develop hallucinated cases and fabricated quotations.” Case Nos. 0:25-cv-60630, 0:25-cv-60646, 0:25-cv-60647, 0:25-cv-60712, 2025 WL 3091094, at *1, 4 (S.D.
Docket entry 215, 12 December 2025 · source · PDF · 29 pages
Docket text. ORDER: Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion for Sanctions 184 .Defendants' Motion for Imposition of Sanctions 184 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court strikes the sanctionable briefs, orders Mr. Brigandi to pay monetary sanctions, orders Mr. Murphy to show cause, and dismisses Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 12/12/2025 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 12/12/2025)
I :21-cv-00157-CL OPINION AND ORDER The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence and continual violations of the Local Rules. In briefing the cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities. This Opinion does not include the names of the fictitious cases doctored by Plaintiffs, as doing so could inadvertently amplify the lie that these cases exist.
This Opinion does not include the names of the fictitious cases doctored by Plaintiffs, as doing so could inadvertently amplify the lie that these cases exist. 1 1 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions accurately details the fictitious cases and fabricated quotations filed in Plaintiffs' briefing. Defs.' Mot. for Sanctions at 4-11, ECF No.
Rule 1 l(b) provides in relevant part: identified an additional fabricated quotation falsely attributed to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, explained below.
Plaintiffs' Fabrications of Law A. Plaintiffs' Motion Cites Two Non-Existent Cases On January 31, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment that contained purported legal arguments supported by citations to two non-existent cases. ECF No.
Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER B. Plaintiffs' Response Cites Seven Non-Existent Cases On April 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their response brief to Defendants ' cross motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No.
155. Plaintiffs' response cited seven non-existent cases. Later that day, Defendants filed their brief in response to Plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment and identified the two non-existent cases cited in Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion.
160. Defendants suggested that these non-existent cases were "perhaps hallucinated by artificial intelligence." Id. at 35. Defendants' response also noted that Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion violated the Local Rules on word count limits (falsely certifying compliance), formatting of exhibits, filing requirements for declarations, and factual citation specificity on summary judgment briefing.
C. Plaintiffs File a Notice of Errata that Ignores their Use of Non-Existent Cases On April 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Errata. ECF No.
Docket entry 194, 7 July 2025 · source · PDF · 12 pages
Docket text. Response to Motion for Imposition of Sanctions 184 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joanne Couvrette) (Glaccum, Curtis) (Entered: 07/07/2025)
Hayes, counsel, Mr. Francisco, failed to concede that he had quoted a fictitious legal citation in support of his position: “Unlike other cases where counsel and litigants have admitted, sometimes reluctantly, that the fictitious citations and quotations were created by generative AI, Mr. Francisco states that he ‘did not use and ha[s] never used AI (artificial intelligence) to draft any of my motions.’” United States v.
(ECF 178). While the use of inaccurate or fictitious citations is potentially grounds sanctions, in this case, the appropriate corrections were made within the time and scope required under Rule 11. Mr.