Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Devin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLC
United States District Court for the District of Maryland · Federal district courts · MD · · No. 1:25-cv-02270-ABA · memorandum opinion
The District of Maryland on 2026-05-04 granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice after noting non-existent cases and quotations in Devin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLC. The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.
- Disposition
- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice after noting non-existent cases and quotations.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation. — outcome: other; actor: litigant in person
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss, Mr. Robinson filed a response, and Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 34, 36, 40. Mr. Robinson also filed a “Declaration Regarding Citation Clarifications” in which he attempts to explain why his response brief contains nonexistent cases and quotations, as pointed out in Defendants’ reply brief. ECF No. 41. On April 22, 2026, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for sanctions, during which the Court provided the parties an opportunity to address the motion to dismiss. DISCUSSION Among other things, Defendants argue that the release in the Agreement bars Mr. Robinson’s claims. The Court agrees.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face