District Court, D. Nevada, 31 October 2025 to 17 December 2025. 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 62, 17 December 2025 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Docket text. REPLY to Response to 47 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (George, Elias) (Entered: 12/17/2025)
3 DMS_US.374983026.2 Fifth, the SAC is a shotgun pleading that is not rectified by Kelly’s filing of an improper Request for Judicial Notice. Finally, the Opposition contains several nonexistent case citations and quotes that do not appear in the caselaw and may have been created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) hallucinations. To avoid the unnecessary time and expense to FINRA in opposing AI hallucinated authority, and to conserve judicial resources, FINRA requests that the Court admonish Kelly from making future misrepresentations of legal authority.
2007). While Kelly lists the 2007 Weissman decision in his Table of Authorities, it is the 2006 Weissman decision he cites in his brief, including to hallucinated quotes that do not appear anywhere in either case. Opp. pp.
See Opp. p. 10 (attributing a non-existent quote to City of Providence v. BATS Glob.
Ct. 2751 (2025), which does not address regulatory immunity and is inapposite to the issues in this case); id. at 2, 13 (attributing a non-existent quote to DL Capital Group, 409 F.3d at 99, and citing the case for 6 DMS_US.374983026.2 propositions that are not presented in this case). Some of these additional cases also support FINRA’s assertion of regulatory immunity.
Docket entry 43, 31 October 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE to 41 Motion, by Defendant Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Replies due by 11/7/2025. (George, Elias) (Entered: 10/31/2025)
Citing to what may be an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) hallucination, Kelly erroneously contends that the local rules require an attorney to file a petition and to associate with local counsel within 45 days of the attorney’s first appearance in civil cases.1 Mot. at 4.
Sept. 26, 2025) (“The Court may sanction [pro se] plaintiff if plaintiff cites nonexistent or misleading caselaw in the future, whether or not generated or hallucinated by AI.”); Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, No.
Apr. 23, 2005) (plaintiff’s pro se status was “no excuse for submitting non-existent authority to the court in support of a brief”); Sims v. Souily-Lefave, No.
As a result, the Motion should be denied in its entirety. Further, FINRA respectfully requests that the Court admonish Kelly against: (i) filing any further vexatious and frivolous motions, and (ii) making future filings with the Court that include nonexistent citations or misrepresentations of legal authorities upon which he relies. Dated: October 31, 2025 EPG LAW GROUP Elias George, NV Bar No.
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
Mentionsa referral to a bar or disciplinary body
Mentionsdismissal
Mentionsa self-represented party
Mentionssanctions
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.