Published opinion, 4 December 2024 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Appellee Enrique Gutierrez moved to dismiss on the grounds that this court lacked jurisdiction to review the orders on appeal and Gutierrez lacked standing to appeal the orders. Enrique also filed with this court a notice of phantom case law, listing the legal authorities relied on by Gutierrez in the initial brief “that simply do not exist.” Appellee Noemi D. Gutierrez moved to dismiss on the sa me grounds, as well as a sanction for citing fictitious or non-existent case law.
2d 47 (Fla. 1999), for submitting an initial brief that violates the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and contains fictitious and nonexistent case law. Gutierrez failed to respond to our show cause order.
Alarmingly, the bulk of the cases cited by Gutierrez do not in fact exist in the body of Florida case law, and therefore constitute fake or “phantom case 5 law.” Further, where a correct case citation is provided, the case does not contain the quotation attributed to it. We find Gutierrez’s failure to comply with rule 9.210(b) and submission of fictitious case law to this court sufficient to warrant the imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., Kruse v.
App. 2024) (dismissing self-represented appellant’s appeal due to submission of brief that violated applicable rules of appellate procedure and relied on “fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence”); see also Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 612 (2d Cir.
3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning attorneys under rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and inherent power of court for submitting filing containing “ non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT ”). Although a self - represented litigant, Gutierrez is bound by same rules that apply to counsel, including an obligation to refrain from filing frivolous or baseless pleadings.
1st DCA 2008) , such that we are compelled to prohibit Gutierrez from appearing on his own behalf in any future filings in this court concerning the underlying probate matter. Accordingly, based upon Gutierrez’s failure to respond to this court’s order to show cause and submission of briefs to this court that violate rule 9.210(b) and contain fictitious and nonexistent case law, we grant the appellees’ motions to dismiss and hereby dismiss as a sanction the instant consolidated appeals . Furthermore, “based upon the copious meritless 7 filings in this court,” Aguirre, 112 So.