Traver v. General Motors Financial Company Inc., et al.

What the court wrote

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

Rule 15(a) to correct a misnomer.”). 3. Nonexistent Case Citations Defendants bring to the Court’s attention that Plaintiffs’ Opposition cites cases that do not exist and contain mischaracterizations of legal precedent and rules of law. The Court has conducted its own research into Plaintiffs’ citations and concludes that they are indeed nonexistent. [See Dkt. 74 at 2-3, 5 (citing, inter alia, nonexistent cases such as Schuh v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, 602 F. Supp. 2d 832 (S.D. Ohio 2009); Barbosa v. Target Corp., 2013 WL 6336093 (D. Mass. 2013); and Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Hunt, 385 Mass. 307 (1982)]. Although courts construe pro se filings liberally, there are “reasonable limits.” United States v. Valdez. 88 F.4th 334, 344 n. 7 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008)). Pro se litigants “must be held generally to the same standards as an attorney.” Doe v. Solvay Pharms., Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 257, 260 n.3 (D. Me. 2004). Here, if an attorney had made a filing “rife with miscitations and AI hallucinations, that attorney would likely be subject to sanctions.” Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Beall, No. 25-CV-00071, 2025 WL 2084353, at *2 (D. Me. July 24, 2025). The Court does not take this lightly and reminds 6 Case 1:25-cv-11890-AK Document 87 Filed 03/11/26 Page 7 of 11 Plaintiffs that they may not make false or fictitious representations to the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to certify in any future filings that they have reviewed the filings to confirm that citations are not hallucinated or falsely represented. See id. (imposing similar warnings for AI- hallucinated cases filed by pro se litigant). Plaintiffs are warned that if they make further false or fictitious filings, they may be subject to more severe sanctions, including dismissal of the case. 4. Facts and Arguments Outside Pleadings In their Opposition, Plaintiffs allege facts that are not in the Amended Complaint. For example, they assert that “Defendants knowingly retained Eastern Recovery, which was not properly licensed in Massachusetts or Rhode Island.” [Dkt. 55 at 3]. Plaintiffs have not moved

Authorities cited in the passage: Opposition cited this case; the Court · Schuh v. Weltman · Barbosa v. Target Corp., 2013 WL 6336093 · Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Hunt · United States v. Valdez. 88 F.4th 334 · Dutil v. Murphy · Doe v. Solvay Pharms · Inc. v. Beall, No. 25-CV-00071, 2025 WL 2084353