Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank et al.

What the court wrote

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

Co., 15 does not support Plaintiff's position. The court agrees Amended Complaint should be dismissed as to ABC Legal. that Plaintiff's authority is misplaced. However, the court has wide discretion in considering a Rule 12(b)(5) motion. This In closing, the court notes its concern with the use of artificial includes dismissing a case if it appears unlikely that proper intelligence (AI) in this case. ABC Legal avers that Plaintiff's service can be instituted. Or quashing service and giving use of AI in this case undermines the discretion given to a plaintiff an opportunity to re-serve the defendant. 16 The Mr. Lee as a pro se party and raises serious concerns due court finds Plaintiff reserved ABC Legal and therefore the to the misstatements of the law and holdings in Plaintiff's court will deny the 12(b)(5) motion and move to address ABC cited authority. Based on these problems, ABC Legal asks the Legal's contention for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 17 court to “disregard any AI-generated portions of Plaintiff's opposition to the extent they are inaccurate or hallucinated” ABC Legal argues Plaintiff's tortious interference claim and to the extent Mr. Lee “relies primarily on such content fails because no contractual relationship was disrupted. without providing specific factual support for its claims.” 24 The court agrees. “A party is subject to liability for an intentional interference with present contractual relations if Judges have increasingly sanctioned attorneys and parties for he intentionally and improperly causes one of the parties not using generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to draft legal to perform the contract.” 18 Liability for future contractional documents that contain fabricated cases, fake citations, or relations is similar, a party causes another party to not perform “hallucinated” legal arguments. For example, in Lexos Media a future contract. Plaintiff's allegations are general in nature IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 25 a Judge in this Circuit fined multiple attorneys for submitting documents in the case that contained defective legal citations created using generative AI. 26 Another court in this Circuit noted that RECOMMENDATION 27 Rule 11 and possible sanctions apply to the use of AI. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned Pro se parties are not immune and have also been sanctioned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under for false citations in filings. 28 The court declines ABC Rule 12(b)(6) be GRANTED and that this action be Legal's invitation regarding Plaintiff's AI generated materials. DISMISSED. 30 However, the admonition of the Seventh Circuit is appropriate here for Mr. Lee: As pro se litigants employ AI to assist with court NOTICE TO PARTIES filings, a basic reminder seems wise. Accuracy and honesty matter. Indeed, the submission of a legal filing constitutes Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent a representation to a court and, as the Federal Rules to all parties, who are hereby notified of their right to of Civil Procedure put the point, both attorneys and object. 31 The parties must file any objection to this Report unrepresented parties are certifying “that to the best of and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service. the person's knowledge, information and belief, formed “[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve the “factual contentions have evidentiary support” and an issue for de novo review by the district court of for the “legal contentions are warranted by existing law or appellate review.” 32 Failure to object may constitution

Authorities cited in the passage: LLC v. Overstock.com · Rule 11