Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Lastly, the Court underscores its Standing Order to remind Plaintiff that the inclusion of non-existent quotations in Plaintiff's briefing submitted to this Court is unacceptable. (See Opp'n at 3-4; Order Re Amended Civil Case Standing Order, Dkt. No. 65 at 18-20 (“caution[ing] that unqualified reliance on AI-generated content can result in filings that rely on misrepresentations and hallucinated, nonexistent caselaw”)). While the Court understands that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court does not condone the submission of misstated case law from any litigant and is concerned by Plaintiff's doubling-down in her Reply where she claims that Kaiser pointed out her incorrect quotations in bad faith to improperly attack her, rather than correcting her citations. ... Quoting paraphrased language generated from artificial intelligence tools, published on websites explaining case law (e.g., law.cornell.edu), or from personal manipulation without appropriate signals (e.g., without bracketing, ellipses, etc.) as if those quotations came directly from the cases themselves is squarely prohibited. If Plaintiff were a lawyer, the Court would be imposing significant sanctions for this conduct.

Authorities cited in the passage: Order Re Amended Civil Case Standing Order, Dkt. No. 65 · Chapman v. Horace Mann Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2025 WL 3724904 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)