Docket entry 135, 16 September 2024 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE by BKA Holdings LLC., Melissa Mobilein Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Karen Sam, Robert Sam to disqualify counsel Presented before Magistrate Judge 134 Response to Motion to Disqualify (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 Felony Plea Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 6 Prior Case History, # 3 Exhibit 8 J. Pedersen Disqualification Hearing, # 4 Exhibit 10 Hallucinated Cases, # 5 Exhibit 11 March 7, 2024 email, # 6 Exhibit 12 Very Long Leash, # 7 Exhibit 13 Long Leash, # 8 Exhibit 14 No Legal Fees, # 9 Exhibit 15 Mechanics Lien)(Cronauer, Christopher) (Entered: 09/16/2024)
Mr. Sam’s motion relies on, like his current complaint, citation to cases hallucinated by Artificial Intelligence software. For that reason alone, his motion must be denied.
LEXIS 205468 (S.D. Ohio) (The penalty for committing this fraud upon the Court with fake citations to cases should include striking the pleading from the record . . . .) Every case cited by Sam’s are hallucinated. See Ex.
10. Olin Corp., at B(3) is a real case, at least, but the proposition cited was hallucinated. Olin has nothing to do with an attorney conflict.
12. The Sam’s current complaint has around 70 fake cases ignoring many more with hallucinated propositions for real cases that is already subject to a Rule 11 notice. The Sam’s now assert legal arguments in their motion to disqualify based on, again, reckless use of artificial intelligence sources with no care for how it is inaccurate and misleading, and waste everyone’s time.
13. The Sam’s confirmed on September 10, 2024, that they will not do the work necessary to corroborate their citations to hallucinated case law. As the Sam’s have recognized, the Court has been more than patient with them, but they are now continuing to engage in clear bad faith conduct simply to waste time and raise costs for all, which they have also admitted to in emails, which cannot be condoned.
Mr. Sam’s admission that he faces no financial consequences from prolonged litigation, then citing to non-existent cases due to his perceived “very long leash” while gleefully stating he wants BKA to incur significant costs is a clear abuse of everyone’s time and raises costs unnecessarily, which cannot be condoned, requiring his pleading be struck with prejudice for reliance on uncorroborated case law. Page 5 of 8 3.
This alleged “conclusion” lacks any basis in fact or law supporting disqualification and requires denial of the motion. CONCLUSION Plaintiff failed in its high burden to file support disqualification by filing a motion with hallucinated case law, alternative facts, or any applicable analysis. Its motion should be stricken given the disregard for this Court’s time having to verify the citation to fake cases, which are also rampant.