Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—E.D. Cal.: Attorney personally sanctioned for false citations, proving A.I. use not required, (Sep 11, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

The attorney “did not just submit citations to nonexistent cases, she also falsely attributed language as direct quotations from cases.

Determining that an attorney used multiple citations that did not exist and included fake direct quotes, a federal district court in California issued sanctions against the attorney and noted that proving the use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) was not required. The attorney had filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order compelling arbitration between the attorney’s client and Sacramento Logistics. The court found that not only did the motion for reconsideration include references to cases that do not exist, but also it falsely attributed quotations and cited cases for propositions that they did not support. The actions, the court held, violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 11(b), Local Rule 180(e), and multiple provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00953-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025)).

False citations and quotes. According to the defendants, the attorney, in her motion for reconsideration, cited to “two cases that simply do not exist,” 10 other cases that do not contain the language quoted, and 12 cases that do not support the propositions for which they were presented. The attorney defended herself and asserted that eight citations inadvertently included a pinpoint citation and quotation marks around a summary of the holding (though the case summaries were accurate); two citations included a pinpoint citation in error (though the case summaries were accurate); three citations contained no actual errors; and four citations mistakenly listed the wrong case name and citation (though the case summaries were accurate). On the assertion that A.I. was used, the attorney maintained that the first time she became aware of the use of A.I. in the legal field was when she was accused of using it to draft the motion.

Nonexistent cases. In the court’s review of the citations, it found that a majority of the citations in the motion for reconsideration “are erroneous.” For example, “Klein v. Avante Group, Inc., 199 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000)” was cited for the proposition that “a district court lacks the authority to split claims and retain jurisdiction over some while remanding others based on the same set of facts and legal issues.” However, the court noted, “Klein v. Avante Group, Inc., 199 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000)” does not exist. The court’s search for “Klein v. Avante Group, Inc., 199 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000)” did not yield any results, specifically no case by that name and no case at reporter “199 F.3d 1328” from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the year 2000, or any other year.

The court noted that the attorney had multiple opportunities to acknowledge her errors but did not. Also, the court found that her claim that the errors may have been caused by her “old-school” handwritten notes was belied by her subsequent explanation that she used Westlaw’s copy/paste feature to retrieve citations and pinpoint citations.

Proof of AI use not required. On the use of A.I., the court determined that it did not need to prove the use of A.I. in order to find against the attorney.

In sum, the attorney did not just submit citations to nonexistent cases, she also falsely attributed language as direct quotations from cases and misrepresented cases by citing them for propositions they do not support, and, as a result, violated FRCP 11(b). Also, her submission of fictitious cases and quotations to the court degraded the integrity of the court and interfered with the administration of justice in violation of Local Rule 180(e). It also violated California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and 3.3(a)(2).

Sanctions. The attorney was personally sanctioned in the amount of $1,500. In addition, the copy of the order on the sanctions was required to be sent to the attorney’s client and the State Bar of California.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00953-DC-JDP.

Attorneys: Zachary Miles Crosner (Crosner Legal) for Teniah Tercero. Matthew C. Kane (Baker & Hostetler) for Sacramento Logistics, LLC and C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC.

Companies: Sacramento Logistics, LLC; C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC

Cases: Procedure RemediesDamages Arbitration CaliforniaNews