District Court, N.D. Illinois, 7 April 2026 to 9 April 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from 2 documents on file.
Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.
What the court wrote
The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 97, 9 April 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages
Docket text. CORRECTED Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/9/2026. Mailed notice(lk, )
Plaintiff generated each brief using AI. Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact. (Dkt.
90); (see also Dkt. 92-1) (identifying 13 hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law). For example, Plaintiff quotes Marshall v.
“ Andrade” is not a real case. Plaintiff’s reliance on AI hallucinations is not limited to made up cases either. Plaintiff conjures up new language from this Court’s prior orders as well.
88). Plaintiff’s motion is so replete with fabricated law, quotes, and statements that there is virtually no cogent argument actually supported by real law. (Dkt.
This is not the first time Plaintiff has done this. In a prior filing, Plaintiff’s brief contained at least 17 instances of fake cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact from AI hallucinations. ( Compare Dkt.
Plaintiff “must ensure that the case citations and representations she presents to the court are accura te and are supported by valid precedent; the fact that she is representing herself does not relieve her of that duty.” Id. “Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11.” Id. at *10. Plaintiff did just that repeatedly.
“This demonstrates that [Plaintiff] failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts. This wastes both the parties’ and the Court ’s time attempting to locate nonexistent cases and unpack made up factual assertions.” Id. The Court sanctions Plaintiff $5,000 for filing false cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact to the Court in violation of Rule 11.
Feb. 12, 2026) (recommending $10,000 sanction for submitting a brief with hallucinated cases); Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v.
Docket entry 96, 7 April 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages
Docket text. OPINION and Order signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/7/2026. The Court strikes Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment 90 . Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay $5000 to the Clerk of the Court within two weeks of the date of this Order for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Please refer to Opinion for further details. Mailed notice(lk, )
Plaintiff generated each brief using AI. Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact. (Dkt.
90); (see also Dkt. 92-1) (identifying 13 hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law). For example, Plaintiff quotes Marshall v.
“ Andrade” is not a real case. Plaintiff’s reliance on AI hallucinations is not limited to made up cases either. Plaintiff conjures up new language from this Court’s prior orders as well.
88). Plaintiff’s motion is so replete with fabricated law, quotes, and statements that there is virtually no cogent argument actually supported by real law. (Dkt.
This is not the first time Plaintiff has done this. In a prior filing, Plaintiff’s brief contained at least 17 instances of fake cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact from AI hallucinations. ( Compare Dkt.
Plaintiff “must ensure that the case citations and representations she presents to the court are accurate and are supported by valid precedent; the fact that she is representing herself does not relieve her of that duty.” Id. “Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11.” Id. at *10. Plaintiff did just that repeatedly.
“This demonstrates that [Plaintiff] failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts. This wastes both the parties’ and the Court ’s time attempting to locate nonexistent cases and unpack made up factual assertions.” Id. The Court sanctions Plaintiff $9,750 for filing false cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact to the Court in violation of Rule 11.
Feb. 12, 2026) (recommending $10,000 sanction for submitting a brief with hallucinated cases); Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v.
What the text mentions
Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.
Mentionsdismissal
Mentionsa self-represented party
MentionsRule 11
Mentionssanctions
Mentionsstriking a filing
Dollar figures near "sanction", "fine", "pay" or "fees"$1,500, $10,000, $5,000, $5000, $6,000, $7,500, $9,750
Where this fits
This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.