Palumbo v. Palumbo

What the court wrote

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

Moreover, many of the cases cited by Respondent in support of his proposition neither expressly state nor even suggest the statements for which he invokes them. Respondent cites Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings, LLC for the proposition that (1) the proper procedural retort to a confusing claim is a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, (2) that Delaware courts routinely reject “objections as to style” in pleadings, (3) “[e]ven if the pleading is imperfect, dismissal is not warranted where the defendant is on notice of the claim,” and (4) that Delaware courts evaluate “based on their substance, not the heading under which they appear.” 2009 WL 4345724 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2009). Unfortunately for Respondent, Kuroda never discusses Rule 12(e) nor stands for any of these principles. Respondent even purports to cite Kuroda on two occasions in his post-trial briefing, yet the cited words never appear in the Kuroda decision. Respondent’s invocation of Koninklijke v. Philips Electronics N.V. fares no better. ... Inclusion of fictitious quotations from cases constitutes one of the hallmarks of Artificial Intelligence usage. ... Abuse of AI in litigation filings comprises an “abuse of the adversary system” and is sanctionable conduct. ... Respondent misrepresented law to the court, knowing it was material to the present issues, and failed to correct his statement. ... This concert of action supports my finding that Respondent conducted this litigation with subjective bad faith. As a result, I shift fees and costs to the Petitioners.

Authorities cited in the passage: Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings, LLC, 2009 WL 4345724 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2009) · Koninklijke v. Philips Electronics N.V., 2009 WL 4345724 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2009) · An v. Archblock, 2025 WL 1024661 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025) · Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) · Shawe v. Elting, 157 A.3d 142 (Del. 2017) · Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Islands) Handels AG, 720 A.2d 542 (Del. 1998)