Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Kim Elizabeth Harwell v. WestCare Nevada, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Nevada · Federal district courts · NV · · 2026 WL 658913 · No. No. 2:25-cv-00689-APG-BNW · order
District of Nevada on 2026-03-06 in Kim Elizabeth Harwell v. WestCare Nevada, Inc. found the self-represented party's brief contained one citation defect, including Saila v. Circle, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.
- Disposition
- The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party's brief contained one citation defect, including Saila v. Circle, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. — outcome: warning; 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.
extends to attorneys and pro se litigants alike. FRCP 11(b). However, the complaint is unclear about which There has been a rise in fake authority cited in briefs, usually defendants Harwell is suing for negligence. In different as the result of using generative AI software, like ChatGPT, parts of her complaint, she alleges that the “[d]efendants,” to draft pleadings or other court filings. Johnson v. MINI of WestCare, Davisson, or unnamed WestCare staff had or Las Vegas, No. 2:25-cv-00725-APG-EJY, 2025 WL 2718525, breached a duty to her. ECF No. 11 at 6, 11. The defendants at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2025). Generative AI often invents defendants she is suing for each claim. She is not given leave fake cases and legal precedent in its drafting, and using it is to add any additional claims. no excuse to not verify the veracity of citations. Having to research fake authority and spend time chasing down that it is in fact not a real case wastes the time and resources of IV. CONCLUSION opposing parties and the court. Going forward, the parties are *8 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion reminded of their duty under FRCP 11(b)(2) and that citing to dismiss and for a more definite statement (ECF No. fake cases drafted by generative AI may violate this rule. 15) is GRANTED in part. I dismiss Harwell's § 504 Failure to comply in the future may result in sanctions, such discrimination claim against all defendants and dismiss her as an order to pay a penalty into court or to the other side, or § 504 retaliation claim against WestCare, Irma Magrdichian, nonmonetary directives. FRCP 11(c)(4). Leo Magrdichian, and Melinda Minor. I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff Harwell may file an III. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT amended complaint asserting her § 504 discrimination, § I should freely give leave to amend a complaint “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the 504 retaliation, and negligence claims and specifically stating
Authorities cited in the passage: Estate of Saila v. Circle K Corp · Johnson v. MINI of WestCare