Docket entry 92, 10 October 2025 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Docket text. ORDER Sanctioning Plaintiff's Counsel, Edward A. Quesada. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on October 10, 2025. (amolc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2025)
90, 91 On July 17, 2025, during the hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, Edward, A. Quesada, to show cause why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue for his inclusion of nonexistent and erroneous case citations in Plaintiff’s brief at Dkt. No.
B. Citations to Fictitious Cases “To start with the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearly has not read those nonexistent cases.” Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F.
2023) (“A fake opinion is not ‘existing law’ and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law.”). Quesada’s submission of citations to nonexistent cases, on its own, constitutes a violation of FRCP 11(b). See e.g., Mavy v.
Aug. 14, 2025) (“By repeatedly citing this Court to non-existent ‘cases’ . . . , Counsel failed to conduct any review whatsoever that those cases were valid or that the arguments she was making were legally tenable.”); Allen v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No.
Cal. June 24, 2025) (“By providing fabricated quotations in the Reply and the Response, the Court finds that [counsel] violated FRCP 11 because he did not act reasonably under the circumstances to ensure that the legal contentions in his brief were accurately representing existing law.”); Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D.
2025) (“Because there is no dispute that Respondents cited fake cases in a signed motion, Respondents’ conduct violates Rule 11(b)(2).”). Here, Quesada’s erroneous citations make clear that he submitted Plaintiff’s brief to the Court without conducting a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the legal authorities cited because he otherwise would have recognized that the cases cited did not exist. In his response to the Court’s order to show cause, Quesada acknowledged that the two cases highlighted by the Court apparently do not exist.
United States District Court Northern District of California Spector and Moffitt v. Whiting-Turner, with non-existent Westlaw citations not repeated here to avoid further fictitious citation). Quesada further acknowledged that he cited in his brief another fake case that the Court had not called out.
Companion Life Ins. Co., with non-existent Westlaw citation not repeated here). Quesada states that he normally downloads and Shepardizes “published” cases cited within his briefs, effectively conceding that he made no effort to review the unpublished cases included within his brief.