Docket entry 44, 20 August 2025 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Docket text. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court adopts the R&R (Doc. 34) in all respects except for its denial of Plaintiff's motion to amend. That motion will be granted as to Alphabet only. Accordingly, Consensys's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff Lahti's claims against Consensys are STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration. Alphabet's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing an amended compl aint. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 26) is DENIED as to Consensys but GRANTED as to Alphabet. Further, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 40) and Motion to Preserve Financial Evidence (Doc. 41) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins on 8/19/2025. (kmc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
38) and Motion to Amend (Doc. 39) Consensys asks the Court to strike the Reply because: 1) it is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 2) it contains fictitious case citations. Doc.
39) as moot. While it is appropriate for the Court strike Lahti’s Reply on either of the bases offered by Consensys , the Court turns now to the more troublesome concern Consensys raises regarding fictitious case citations . This troubling discovery permeates the discussion pertaining to the remaining issues the Court must resolve.
This troubling discovery permeates the discussion pertaining to the remaining issues the Court must resolve. Consensys identifies four fictitious case citations in Lahti’s Reply. See Doc.
38, PageID 378. Indeed, these four supposed cases were cited by Lahti but appear to be fictitious; they cannot be found in the major commercial databases (Westlaw and Lexis).2 Additionally, two other cases were cite d with incorrect dates and reporter citations, and perhaps more 2 For the cases cited that were supposedly from the Sixth Circuit, the Court further confirmed that the Sixth Circuit issued no opinion with the identified caption or a similar caption on the identified date. Case: 1:24-cv-00183-JPH-SKB Doc #: 44 Filed: 08/20/25 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 444 6 concerningly, stand for the opposit e propositions from the ones for which they are cited.
Case: 1:24-cv-00183-JPH-SKB Doc #: 44 Filed: 08/20/25 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 444 6 concerningly, stand for the opposit e propositions from the ones for which they are cited. 3 These fictitious citations have the hallmarks of text generated by a large language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT or Google Bard. Lahti has not acknowledged the error but instead sought to “correct any errors in the reply . . . or, in the alternative, to withdraw it from the record.” Doc.
The solutions Lahti proposes to compensate for the harm caused by her errant filings aren’t so simple or easily resolved. Submitting fictitious case citations violates one of the core principles of federal court practice, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Rule 11 holds that by presenting a “pleading, written motion, or other paper ” to the court, an attorney or unrepresented party makes certain representations to the court regarding the contents of that motion, including that it is not being presented to “harass . . . or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, ” Fed.
Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 466 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions on attorneys who filed a brief including fictitious case citations); Alkuda v. McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A., No.
Ohio Mar. 18, 2025) (“Submitting fictitious legal citations is not permitted, whether submitted by a pro se litigant or a licensed attorney.”). Additionally, the Court notes that fictitious citations contained in Lahti’s Reply represent a pattern of such conduct by Lahti that has occurred throughout this case; Lahti also 3 For example, Lahti wrote: “The Sixth Circuit similarly refused to enforce an arbitration clause in McGrew v.