Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Cristancho v. SWBC Mortgage Corporation
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · Federal district courts · TX · · No. 3:24-cv-00110 · report and recommendation
The Southern District of Texas magistrate judge recommends summary judgment for SWBC Mortgage and Cenlar. The recommendation says plaintiffs’ counsel cited fabricated Pointe West and Tractebel cases, misused other authorities, and is reminded of Rule 11 duties.
- Disposition
- The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants' summary-judgment motion and admonished plaintiffs' counsel over fabricated authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- Plaintiffs’ counsel cited fabricated Pointe West and Tractebel cases and invoked a Restatement provision for a proposition it did not contain. — outcome: warning; actor: lawyer
- 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.
Plaintiffs cite Pointe West Center, LLC v. It’s Alive, Inc., 796 S.W.2d 830, 838–39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), and Motten v. Chase Home Financial, 821 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 2011), for the proposition that a cause of action for wrongful initiation of foreclosure proceedings exists. Pointe West is a fabricated cite, and Motten states that “courts in Texas do not recognize an action for attempted wrongful foreclosure.” 831 F. Supp. 2d at 1007 (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded that every submission to the court represents that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions” within “are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). “[S]ubmitting a brief riddled with fabricated quotations and assertions is . . . an abuse [of the judicial process].” Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2026). ... Plaintiffs argue that “the prior material breach doctrine does not bar a plaintiff’s contract claim where the defendant’s own breach caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s non-performance.” Dkt. 34 at 13. In support, Plaintiffs cite Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 237 cmt. d (1981), and Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 737, 744 (S.D. Tex. 2000). The use of these citations is either the product of incredibly shoddy legal work or an outright misrepresentation to the court. The Tractebel case is fabricated, and the referenced Restatement provision says nothing of the sort.
Authorities cited in the passage: Pointe West Center, LLC v. It’s Alive, Inc., 796 S.W.2d 830 · Motten v. Chase Home Financial, 821 F. Supp. 2d 988 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2026) · Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 237 · Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 737
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face