Christ Apostolic Temple, Inc., Dwight Reed and Jordan Reed v. Demetrius Sinegal, et al.

What the court wrote

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

Sinegal’s appellate and reply briefs contain citations to cases that do not exist or donotstandforthepropositionforwhichtheyarecited. Thissuggeststhepossibilitythat he used generative artificial intelligence to prepare his briefs. If that is the case, we again “stress that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.” Luke v. Dep’t. of Health and Human Servs., 29 N.W.3d 635, 636 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). When considering whether Sinegal established excusable neglect, relevant considerations include timeliness of Sinegal’s filings,“whether [he] intendedtodefend,whether[he]assertedameritoriousdefenseingoodfaith, andwhether[he]ignoredorwillfullydefiedtherulesof procedure.” Id. The district court’s ruling took these considerations into account, and we agree with its analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm without further opinion. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d)(e) (authorizing memorandum opinions when“[a] full opinion would not augment or clarify existing case law”). AFFIRMED.

Authorities cited in the passage: Luke v. Dep’t. of Health and Human Servs., 29 N