Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

What the court wrote

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

The Court first addresses GCTRA’s reliance on Shimola. First, “State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland” is not found at “70 Ohio St.3d 40” as cited by GCRTA. That citation is to State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. Comm’n of Ohio, 70 Ohio St.3d 36, 635 N.E.2d 1257 (Ohio 1994). And that case was a workers’ compensation case that has nothing to do with parties pursing inconsistent remedies. Second, “State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland” is a real case, which can be found at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, 637 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio 1994). But Shimola involved the entry of default judgment and there was no discussion of whether the plaintiff was pursuing inconsistent remedies. ... This citation bears the hallmarks of a hallucinated case citation. Given GCRTA’s other frivolous arguments in their Opposition, the Court strongly suspects that AI was used to draft the Opposition. This undersigned has issued sanctions in the past for Rule 11 violations related to improper AI use. Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:24-cv-02033-PAB, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214410, at *11–12 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2025). GCRTA is expressly warned that the undersigned will not hesitate to do so again in this case if further briefing contains frivolous arguments and hallucinated case citations. This remains true even if these were merely human errors made without the use of AI.

Authorities cited in the passage: State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland, 70 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 1994) · State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. Comm’n of Ohio, 70 Ohio St.3d 36 (Ohio 1994) · Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:24-cv-02033-PAB