Docket entry 48, 30 January 2024 · source · PDF · 12 pages
Docket text. ORDER of USCA as to [47] Notice of Appeal filed by Minhye Park. Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from an August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) dismissing her action against Defendant-Appellee David Dennis Kim, pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for her persistent and knowing violation of court orders. The record demonstrates Parks sustained and willful intransigence in spite of repeated warnings that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the action. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Judgment of dismissal. Certified Copy Issued: 1/30/2024. USCA# 22-2057. (VJ)
Lee. Lee’s reply brief in this case includes a citation to a non-existent case, which she We separately address the fact that Park’s counsel, Attorney Jae S. Lee, has admitted to citing a non -existent state court decision in her reply brief to this Court.
3 admits she generated using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. Because citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel, we refer Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel, and further direct Attorney Lee to furnish a copy of this decision to her client, Plaintiff-Appellant Park. STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review a district court’s imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion.” Wolters Kluwer Fin.
172 (hereinafter, “Response”). Although Attorney Lee did not expressly indicate as much in her Response, the reason she could not provide a copy of the case is that it does not exist – and indeed, Attorney Lee refers to the case at one point as “this non- existent case.” Id. at 2. Attorney Lee’s Response states: I encountered difficulties in locating a relevant case to establish a minimum wage for an injured worker lacking prior year income records for compensation determination . . . .
11(b).”). inform a licensed attorney, who is a member of the bar of this Court, that she must ensure that her submissions to the Court are accurate. Attorney Lee’s submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393. The brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented.