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 85, 17 December 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages
Docket text. Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim AND Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
On June 23, 2025, the Defendants replied (“MTD Reply”) [ECF No. 60], pointing out that the MTD Response’s reliance on “fake cases, fabricated quotations from real cases, and inaccurate citations to the complaint and defendants’ motion.” MTD Reply at 1. The Plaintiffs then asked to file a sur-reply, see Motion for Sur-reply [ECF No.
What’s worse, Nicholas M. Plymale —the junior associate who drafted the MTD Response—claimed that he “did not fabricate any case, citation, quote, or legal authority in any filing submitted to this Court.” Affidavit of Nicholas M. Plymale [ECF No.
On November 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lett granted the Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions because the MTD Response included “multiple hallucinated cases, misquotes, and misrepresentations of legal authority ,” which was “unreasonable given counsel’s ethical obligations to their clients and this Court [.]” Id. at 16.
Docket entry 83, 21 November 2025 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Docket text. Order on Motion for Sanctions
MTD Reply at 1- 2. Not only did the MTD Reply highlight potential legal deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Joint Amended Complaint, but the MTD Reply alluded to the probable reliance on hallucinated legal authority by Plaintiffs’ counsel—N icholas Plymale, Nicholas Gerson, Philip Gerson, and Edward Schwartz (Collectively, “Gerson & Schwartz, P.A.”). The MTD Reply notes that Plaintiffs’ MTD Response was riddled “with fake cases, fabricated quotations from real cases, and inaccurate citations to the complaint and defendants’ motion.” MTD Reply at 1.
66]. The Sanctions Response lean s heavily on the Proposed Sur -Reply, stating, “[t]here is no fabricated case, quotation, or citation in the revised filing”—the revised filing being the denied Proposed Sur-Reply. Id. at 2.
Furthermore, t he Sanctions Response attaches an affidavit by Nicholas M. Plymale —the attorney responsible for drafting the hallucinated MTD Response—where he affirm s that he “did not fabricate any case, citation, quote, or legal authority in any filing submitted to this Court.” Sanctions Resp., Ex. 1 [ECF No.
NCL and Chapman. Id. ¶ 5 (emphasis added); (2) on June 18, 2025, Attorney Tyler Rauh emailed Attorney Plymale stating that multiple authorities included in the MTD Response did not exist, the MTD Response contained miscites of real cases , and Defendants did not oppose Attorney Plymale seeking leave or submitting an amended response. Id. ¶ 8-9, 12; (3) despite Defendants’ agreement, he was unable to timely file an amended and corrected response because he was sick June 19, 2025 and June 20, 2025, and did not return to the office until June 23, 2025.
Unlike Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. in this action, the Court employed its resources to verify the veracity of all legal authority cited by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. and details the shortcomings of each memorandum in turn: i. The MTD Response The MTD Response includes five (5) fabricated cases. Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. cited Doe v.
10, 2020) , representing to this Court that the Doe court denied a motion to dismiss. However, the Doe Case does not exist; in fact , the citation corresponds to In re: RUBIE'S COSTUME COMPANY, INC., et al. Debtors., 2020 WL 5439559 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.) .
10, 2020) with a parenthetical stating that a motion to dismiss a claim for negligent selection and retention was denied. However, the Chapman case cited by Gerson & Schwartz, P.A. also does not exist because the citation returns a Middle District of Alabama case. Likewise, counsel also cited three other nonexistent cases: Simon v.
4, 2019). What’s more, Counsel Case 1:24-cv-23693-RKA Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2025 Page 5 of 17 6 not only cites hallucinated cases, but the MTD Response also includes hallucinated parentheticals of false holdings and imaginary quotes. In addition to non existent caselaw, t he MTD Response contains misrepresentations of real cases.