The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 41, 10 April 2026 · source · PDF · 11 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Brandon Wilkes, Regan Wilkes. (Attachments: # 1 Cases Citation Corrections, # 2 Article on IDEA Statute of Limitations)(Martz, Amy) (Entered: 04/10/2026)
A scrivener’s error is traditionally defined as an omission or mistake in writing or typing a document, such as a transcription error or a clerical slip. A scrivener’s error is no more Case 2:25-cv-00218-CMR Document 41 Filed 04/10/26 PageID.708 Page 2 of 11 acceptable to the Court than an AI-hallucinated case, as both disrupt the integrity of judicial filings. There is a critical distinction in intent between the two errors.
Docket entry 38, 18 March 2026 · source · PDF · 16 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part 30 Motion to Dismiss and Setting an Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/14/2026 at 10:00 AM in Rm 7.400 before Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 03/17/2026. (sg) (Entered: 03/18/2026)
A at 18)), and ( 2) the Amended Complaint fails to allege that an exception to the statute of limitations applies (id.). Defendants also highlight that the Amended Complaint includes legal arguments about the application of the two -year statute of limitations, but the cases cited to support these points are nonexistent and seem to be “AI-generated hallucinations” (id. at n.9). Regarding Plaintiffs’ apparent use of AI and their citing of non- existent cases , t he Amended Complaint asserts that “Courts differ on whether the two-year period starts from the date of the alleged violation, the date the parent knew or should have known about the violation, or some other event” (Am.
Compl. ¶ 427). In support of this assertion, the Amended Complaint cites the following non-existent cases, which allegedly establish various interpretations and applications of the statute of limitations: “9th Circuit (in F.C. v. Capistrano Unified School District )” (id. ¶¶ 428, 432); “4th Circuit in A.D. v.
Norwalk Public Schools (2017)” (id. ¶ 436). The Amended Complaint appears to Case 2:25-cv-00218-CMR Document 38 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.667 Page 10 of 16 assert that the holdings of these hallucinated cases support Plaintiffs’ assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled (see id. at ¶¶ 426–441). The use of non-existent cases to support a cause of action in a complaint is a serious issue that the court cannot ignore or treat lightly.
5 The harms of citing non- existent case law are particularly on display in this matter, as the Amended Complaint is 91 pages long. The use of even one non-existent case undermines the credibility of the entire document. In addition to the practical and legal concerns with the use of non- existent holdings, what is particularly troubling here is Plaintiffs’ lack of explanation for this blatant error—Plaintiffs did not respond at all to this argument (see ECF 32 at 7–8).
28, 2026)). Due to Plaintiffs’ use of non- existent case law to support their position regarding the application and interpretation of IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations, the court reserves ruling on the Second Cause of Action and instead sets an Order to Show Cause hearing for Tuesday, April 5 On March 3, 2026, Defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF 37) referencing two Tenth Circuit opinions that provide more authority regarding the way courts have dealt with the issue of AI-generated hallucinations. Defendants reference: Moore v.
9, 2026) (ECF 37 at 2). Both cases support the seriousness of using non-existent cases and holdings and the sanctions that can result from such actions. Case 2:25-cv-00218-CMR Document 38 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.668 Page 11 of 16 14, 2026, at 10:00 A.M.
Case 2:25-cv-00218-CMR Document 38 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.668 Page 11 of 16 14, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. During this hearing, the court will discuss possible sanctions for Plaintiffs’ use of non-existent cases and the effect of this use on Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action. C.
Compl. ¶¶ 533–541). As with their Second Cause of Action, the Amended Complaint cites non-existent legal authority to support the Sixth Cause of Action. Specifically, the Amended Complaint misrepresents the facts and holdings of J.M. v.