Najafpir v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

What the court wrote

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

his complaint, plaintiff cites case law that supposedly states that Wells Fargo’s “shifting Northern District of California explanations” for its actions support an inference of discriminatory intent and “contradictory underwriting determinations create a plausible inference of pretext.” (TAC ¶ 41.) Plaintiff—for the third time—cites to “cases” that do not exist. Plaintiff presumably used artificial intelligence that hallucinated those cases. Non-existent cases cannot, by definition, stand for the proposition asserted. 2 Accordingly, plaintiff once again fails to allege an ECOA claim based on disparate treatment. 3. Disparate Impact To state a claim under a disparate treatment theory, a plaintiff must plead: (1) the existence of an outwardly neutral practice or policy; (2) a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact Because plaintiff has shown that he cannot responsibly use artificial intelligence tools, the Court hereby PROHIBITS plaintiff from using artificial intelligence in asserting legal arguments filed with the Court. Should plaintiff again cite to a hallucinated case, the Court will consider appropriate sanctions. on applicants of a particular type produced by the defendant’s facially neutral practice or policy; and (3) facts demonstrating a causal connection between the specific challenged practice or policy and