Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Segui v. Moniz
·United States District Court for the District of Arizona·US-FEDPendingprovisional
On 2026-03-24, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for citing a nonexistent Arizona RICO limitations case. Counsel submitted a motion with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Barker v. Brown & Brown, 210 Ariz. 321, 110 P.3d 1011.
- Court
- United States District Court for the District of Arizona
- Date
- 2026-03-24
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Plaintiffs' counsel cited Barker v. Brown & Brown for an Arizona RICO limitations proposition; the case does not exist and the proposition was wrong.
- Outcome
- Pending
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-08
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)2026-09-22 · United States Court of International Trade · PendingIn the U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge M. Miller Baker ordered a Chinese exporter to substantiate brief statements that Commerce took part in a Canadian antidumping case. If it cannot, it must show cause why it…
- Falkenstein v. Niles, No. 2:26-cv-07078-SB-PD (C.D. Cal.)2026-09-03 · US District Court, Central District of California · PendingIn the US District Court for the Central District of California, defence counsel filed materials with false quotations, misplaced propositions and representations not found in the complaint. Judge Blumenfeld ordered cou…
- James v. Conley, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla.)2026-08-27 · US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, report and recommendation) · PendingIn the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinati…
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Segui v. Moniz”, safelegalai.com/tracker/segui-v-moniz (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.