Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)

What the court wrote

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

CONCLUSION10 10 In reviewing Plaintiffs briefing, the Court identified at least one existence where Plaintiffhad cited to a non-existent authority and brought this issue to Plaintiffs attention. After investigating, Plaintiffconceded that this fictitious citation was most likely the result of artificial intelligence (“Al”). The Court has not considered any ofPlaintiffs contentions, to the extent that they rely on fabricated authority, and will consider whether any other action is necessary. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion (D.I. 26) is granted. Count I is dismissed with prejudice and Counts II-IV are dismissed without prejudice. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DEAN WILLIAMSON, derivatively on behalf of EQUINIX, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-989-GBW V. CHARLES J. MEYERS, ADA1RE FOX­ MARTIN, NANCI CALDWELL, GARY HROMADKO, THOMAS OLINGER, CHRISTOPHER PAISLEY, SANDRA RIVERA, FIDELMA RUSSO, PETER VAN CAMP, JEETU PATEL, THOMAS A. BARTLETT, KEITH D. TAYLOR, SCOTT G. KRIENS, WILLIAM K. LUBY, and IRVING LYONS, III, Defendants, -and- EQUINIX, INC., Nominal Defendant. ORDER At Wilmington this 27th day of May 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1.