Shaquan Pridgen v. Amazon.com Services LLC

What the court wrote

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

12 Pridgen nevertheless argues that “[c]ourts routinely permit pro se plaintiffs to plead class claims ....” MTD Opp'n at 7. Pridgen cites “Lewis v. City of Trenton, 2020 WL 6204330” for this proposition. Id. The case Pridgen cites, however, does not exist. This Court does not tolerate hallucinated citations. Litigants who use generative artificial intelligence must disclose such use to this Court and litigants must review the filings for accuracy. See Section I.B of the Undersigned's Judicial Preferences. This Court warns Pridgen that if future filings include hallucinated citations, this Court will strike those filings and they will not be considered. Pridgen may also be subject to other sanctions. Pridgen's citation to non-existent authority bolsters the Court's conclusion that Pridgen could not adequately represent the interests of other litigants. 13 The Court reiterates that although Amazon does not contest the existence of any EEOC notice to sue, Pridgen did not attach one to his Complaint or MTD Opposition and the Court cannot determine which charge of discrimination was exhausted, if either.

Authorities cited in the passage: Lewis v. City of Trenton, 2020 WL 6204330