Docket entry 24, 15 July 2025 · source · PDF · 20 pages
Docket text. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - For the reasons discussed, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendants' amended motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, be GRANTED, and this action be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal of the state law claims should be without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a response to this Court in writing no later than 7/28/2025 explaining how she conducted legal research for her response to the amended motion to dismiss (including the use of any AI platforms), how the inaccurate citations occurred, what if anything she did to validate the citations and stated holdings, and why sanctions under Rule 11 should not be imposed on her. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARTIN A FITZPATRICK on 7/15/2025. (baf) R&R flag set. ( Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 8/12/2025.) (Entered: 07/15/2025)
23 at 4. Upon review, the reporter number is non-existent and there is no Supreme Court case with that title. There is an Eastern District of Michigan case with that title, but it involves an employment discrimination action.
23 at 6. The Court could not find any cases within the S tate of Florida named Hodge v. Citifinancial or Miller v.
163, 169 (2025) (collecting cases and explaining how “[f] ake cases generated by AI often have reporter citations that lead to cases with different names, in different courts, and about different subjects ”). “It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent Page 10 of 20 4:24-cv-413-MW-MAF of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.” Id. Plaintiff does properly concede that her claim for money damages under TILA is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.