District Court, D. New Jersey, 2 December 2025 to 21 January 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from 3 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 text. TEXT ORDER: Despite several instructions, Plaintiff's Opposition to THOUGHTi's Motion to Dismiss, D.E. [159], does not comply with this Court's Judicial Preferences and this District's Local Rules. Plaintiff's opposition to THOUGHTi's Motion to Dismiss contains hallucinated citations. D.E. [159] at 24-25 (relying on hallucinated citation Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy E&P Co., No. 20-2753, 2021 WL 5495573 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2021); see also D.E. [130] at 30. Plaintiff has been instructed twice that he may not include hallucinated citations in his briefing. See, e.g., D.E. [117] ("Hallucinated citations will not be excused, and the Court may sanction Plaintiff for further uses of hallucinated citations."); D.E. [138] ("The Court reiterates its previous warning that hallucinated citations will not be permitted under any circumstances."). The Court will therefore STRIKE Plaintiff's Opposition to THOUGHTi's Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiff has received numerous opportunities to file compliant oppositions over the past two months and has not, despite warnings that Plaintiff may suffer sanctions, the Court will consider THOUGHTi's Motion to Dismiss unopposed because Plaintiff has failed to properly respond. On the other hand, Plaintiff's Opposition to WebMD's Motion to Dismiss appears compliant. D.E. [169]. WebMD's reply, filed on 1/20/2026 is proper. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 1/21/2026. (bt)
[159], does not comply with this Court's Judicial Preferences and this District's Local Rules. Plaintiff's opposition to THOUGHTi's Motion to Dismiss contains hallucinated citations. D.E.
D.E. [159] at 24-25 (relying on hallucinated citation Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy E&P Co., No.
[130] at 30. Plaintiff has been instructed twice that he may not include hallucinated citations in his briefing. See, e.g., D.E.
See, e.g., D.E. [117] ("Hallucinated citations will not be excused, and the Court may sanction Plaintiff for further uses of hallucinated citations."); D.E. [138] ("The Court reiterates its previous warning that hallucinated citations will not be permitted under any circumstances.").
Docket text. TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Letter addressing the Court's prior Order at D.E. [117]. D.E. [129]. The Court reiterates its previous warning that hallucinated citations will not be permitted under any circumstances. D.E. [117]. Plaintiff also requests to submit his oppositions to WebMD's and THOUGHTi's motions to dismiss, D.Es. [104] and [105], via flash drive, rather than through the ADS system. D.E. [129] at 7, 18. The Court will DENY Plaintiff's request. The Court will consider only filings that are docketed. Plaintiff may contact the CM/ECF Helpline at 1-866-726-0726 for assistance in docketing his filings. Plaintiff may also refer to the ECF Policies and Procedures (https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/PoliciesandProcedures2014.pdf) and the ECF User's Manual (https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/CMECFUserGuide.pdf) for assistance. The Court again instructs Plaintiff that his oppositions and materials should be submitted together to avoid any confusion resulting from the already many filings that Plaintiff has filed on this docket. In addition, Plaintiff must file his oppositions to the pending motions to dismiss before or on 12/15/2025. The filings need not be processed by the ADS system by 12/15/2025. Once Plaintiff's compliant oppositions are processed and appear on the docket, the Court will advise Defendants what their reply deadlines are. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 12/9/2025. (bt)
[129]. The Court reiterates its previous warning that hallucinated citations will not be permitted under any circumstances. D.E.
Docket text. TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff proceeds pro se and appears to seek leave to file untimely overlength briefs in response to THOUGHTi's and WebMD's motions to dismiss. See D.Es. [112], [113], [115]; see also D.Es. [106], [109]. The Court will GRANT Plaintiff's request for an extension, D.E. [112], but will DENY Plaintiff's request to file overlength briefs, D.Es. [113], [115]. Because of the delay in ADS docketing, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file compliant oppositions to D.Es. [104] and [105] before or on 12/15/2025.As discussed above in D.E. 110, Section II.E.iv of this Court's Judicial Preferences explains that "[r]equests for overlength briefs are highly disfavored." Plaintiff relies on a complex multi-district litigation involving 37 individual actions with different categories. See, e.g., D.E. [113] at 5 (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)); D.E. [115] at 5 (same). Plaintiff also cites a case that appears not to exist. D.E. 113 at 5 (citing non-existent United States v. Schiff, No. 17-7306, 2020 WL 1234567 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2020)); D.E. [115] at 5 (same). The Westlaw identifier cited exists for no case and the case no. 17-7306 corresponds to a case Vandium LLC v. Datamotion, Inc. Hallucinated citations will not be excused, and the Court may sanction Plaintiff for further uses of hallucinated citations. Plaintiff's oppositions must comply with the page limits described in this Court's Judicial Preferences and with this District's Local Rules. The Court will provide Plaintiff more time to do so but warns Plaintiff that the Court will reject any opposition that does not comply with page limit requirements or which includes hallucinated citations. See L. Civ. R. 7.2(b); Section I.B. of this Court's Judicial Preferences (setting guidelines on the use of generative artificial intelligence). So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 12/2/2025. (bt)
D.E. 113 at 5 (citing non-existent United States v. Schiff, No.
Datamotion, Inc. Hallucinated citations will not be excused, and the Court may sanction Plaintiff for further uses of hallucinated citations. Plaintiff's oppositions must comply with the page limits described in this Court's Judicial Preferences and with this District's Local Rules.
Plaintiff's oppositions must comply with the page limits described in this Court's Judicial Preferences and with this District's Local Rules. The Court will provide Plaintiff more time to do so but warns Plaintiff that the Court will reject any opposition that does not comply with page limit requirements or which includes hallucinated citations. See L.
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.
Mentionsa warning or admonition
Mentionsdismissal
Mentionsa self-represented party
Mentionssanctions
Mentionsstriking a filing
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.