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 126, 14 May 2025 · source · PDF · 2 pages
Docket text. ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Saxena's renewed motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 124 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no other documents may be filed in this now-closed case. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 5/14/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG) (Entered: 05/15/2025)
See Order, ECF No. 98 at 8 (“I am left to assume one of two things: either Saxena has fabricated cases and then lied to this court about their origin, or he enlisted the assistance of artificial intelligence which invented fake cases to support his assertions, did not check their validity, and then lied to this court about their origin. This behavior is entirely unacceptable.”).
This behavior is entirely unacceptable.”). He has shown no remorse, insisting that “the cases are not non-existent” without providing proof of their existence and conceding only that “[t]he imperfect citations and quotations could be attributed to a pro se lack of legal training and understanding, and transcribing notes incorrectly[.]” ECF No. 100 at 10.
100 at 10. As I explained in my order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, “although courts make ‘some allowances for [a] pro se Plaintiff’s failure to cite to proper legal authority, courts do not make allowances for a Plaintiff who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities,’ to include case terminating sanctions.” ECF No. 98 at 8 (quoting Morgan v.
Docket entry 98, 18 February 2025 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Docket text. ORDER Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' 88 and 90 Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED. Saxena's first amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 2/18/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM) (Entered: 02/18/2025)
However, the quoted portion of the case is not language that can be found in Hearns . It is entirely made up, and I could locate no other case that uses the language as quoted. This sheds light on an arguably more egregious issue with Saxena’s FAC: several of the cases to which he cites do not exist.
In Boruchowitz’s motion, joined by the other three defendants, he points to the improper “Spokane v. Douglass” citation and suggests that it “bears all the hallmarks of a fictitious citation generated by an artificial intelligence hallucination.” ECF No. 88 (citing Kruse v.
2024), reh’g and/or transfer denied (Apr. 9, 2024) (awarding sanctions against appellant where fictitious citations present in brief alerted court to probability that generative AI was involved) and United States v. Cohen, 724 F.
3d 251, 258–59, and n.12 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (“There is no doubt that sanctions can be imposed . . . for the citation to non-existent cases.”)). In response to this accusation, Saxena asserts that “This is completely scandalous and false.
96 at 6. I am left to assume one of two things: either Saxena has fabricated cases and then lied to this court about their origin, or he enlisted the assistance of artificial intelligence which invented fake cases to support his assertions, did not check their validity, and then lied to this court about their origin. This behavior is entirely unacceptable.
This behavior is entirely unacceptable. Indeed, although courts make “some allowances for [a] pro se Plaintiff’s failure to cite to proper legal authority, courts do not make allowances for a Plaintiff who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities.” Morgan v. Cmty.
Instead of adhering to this court’s clear request for compliance with Rule 8, his resulting FAC was, as previously described in this order, a complicated mess of new allegations against dozens of new defendants that failed to comply with both Rules 8 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Saxena also cited to non- existent authority and, when given the opportunity to either correct his citation or admit to his fabrication, he did neither, insisting that the citation “can be googled in two seconds[,]” and describing opposing counsel pointing it out as sanctionable. ECF No.