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, 6 October 2025 · source · PDF · 3 pages
Docket text. ORDER GRANTING 82 MOTION TO WITHDRAW 63 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/06/2025. Dispositive Motion due by 10/27/2025. (nmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2025) (Entered: 10/06/2025)
Sept. 12, 2025) (addressing merits of appeal notwithstanding that majority of brief contained hallucinations “because nothing indicates that plaintiff was aware that her counsel had fabricated legal authority, and defendants addressed plaintiff’s contentions on the merits”). However, both the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel were required to divert attention from the merits of this and other cases to address this issue.
The Court concludes it would be unfair to Plaintiff to allow Defendant to completely withdraw the motion and begin anew. Accordingly, by October 27, 2025, Defendant shall re-file the motion with all hallucinated cases and citations excised. Defendant shall not replace those citations with new authority or argument.
Docket entry 90, 23 September 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 89 Administrative Motion to File Declaration of Linyan Tian Under Seal, 82 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Withdraw Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re 63, 88 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Leave to File Supplemental Russo and Tian Declarations and Leave to File Tian Declaration Under Seal ) filed bySupport Community, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sedlik Declaration)(Sedlik, Gary) (Filed on 9/23/2025) (Entered: 09/23/2025)
Russo to reimburse Support Community, Inc. “(SC”) for “[attorney’s] fees incurred after [SC] discovered the hallucinated cases including reasonable fees incurred in connection with appearing at the show cause hearing.” OSC Order at 4:4-5. Inviting additional briefing on the topic would result in more fees to be incurred by SC relating to the preparation for the show cause hearing, particularly given the Court’s instructions that the parties would have ample opportunity to present their arguments during the hearing.
Sedlik Decl. at 10. On May 7, 2025, just over a month before filing MPH’s Motion for Summary Judgment containing fabricated and hallucinated citations and quotations, Mr. Russo published a podcast episode during which he interviews a “tech-powered attorney” named Alexander Paykin.
Russo and the listening audience that after utilizing AI to prepare an initial draft of a pleading: I retain editorial discretion, meaning I will then read the thing [and] remove the parts I don't agree with, add the things I want, change case law if it got hallucinated, or if it doesn't say what it should, or if I just don't like that case[.] 4 The Court may review the entire podcast by following this link, which is valid as of the preparation of this Response, September 22, 2025 - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- valley-current-what-is-the-mindset-of/id1500097154?i=1000706697043.
This information is provided to the Court not to demean or humiliate Mr. Russo in any way, but rather to put into context both his knowledge and appreciation of the risks and benefits of using Generative AI to draft legal briefs , the associated prevalence of “hallucinated” case law citations and quotations in the resulting products, and the use of AI as a tool for reducing attorney time and associated client costs. All of this information is discussed in detail during Mr.
Docket entry 86, 11 September 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages
Docket text. ORDER CONTINUING AND CONVERTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re 82 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/11/2025. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 9/26/2025 09:00 AM. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jsw Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. (nmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2025) (Entered: 09/11/2025)
The Court has reviewed all briefing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to evaluate what sanctions might be appropriate. The majority of the section that addresses Plaintiff’s claims for fraud does not contain hallucinated citations or cases, and there are large portions of the arguments regarding Plaintiff’s contract claims that remain unaffected. Plaintiff’s opposition focuses primarily on the facts rather than the law, and Plaintiff’s counsel, Gary Sedlik, does not attribute that to Mr.
Plaintiff’s opposition focuses primarily on the facts rather than the law, and Plaintiff’s counsel, Gary Sedlik, does not attribute that to Mr. Russo’s reliance on the hallucinated cases and citations. Indeed, Mr.
Russo’s errors but concludes it would be unfair to Plaintiff to allow Defendant to completely withdraw the motion and begin anew. Accordingly, the Court is tentatively inclined to permit Defendant to withdraw the existing motion and re-file the motion with the hallucinated cases and citations excised, as set forth in Exhibit G to the Declaration of Jack Russo. The Court will resolve the motion once it is re-filed.
4th at 28)” on page 17 line 12. United States District Court Northern District of California The Court tentatively denies Plaintiff’s request to be reimbursed for all attorneys’ fees it incurred to file its opposition brief because, as discussed above, counsel did not discover the case and citation hallucinations until after he filed Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court tentatively grants Plaintiff’s request for fees incurred after it discovered the hallucinated cases including reasonable fees incurred in connection with appearing at the show cause hearing.
Docket entry 84, 18 August 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 82 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Withdraw Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re 63 ) filed bySupport Community, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gary S. Sedlik, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sedlik, Gary) (Filed on 8/18/2025) Modified on 8/19/2025 (kmm2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/18/2025)
Russo failed to review the legal citations and quotations that GAI inserted throughout the Corrected MSJ before filing it with this Court. MPH presented to this Court as valid legal authority at least twelve cases that were (1) fabricated; (2) utilized “real” case names with fabricated case citations; and (3) utilized “real” cases with entirely fabricated quotations purporting to be from the Court’s holding s in those cases. See Declaration of Gary S.
Sedlik (“Sedlik Decl.”) at ¶5 and Exhibit A. The fabricated legal authority in MPH’s brief constitutes 27% of all of the caselaw cited in MPH’s Corrected MSJ. Id.
Id. More than one out of four of the cases cited in MPH’s Corrected MSJ as binding legal authority are fabricated. SC was not aware that MPH had used GAI to prepare and draft its Corrected MSJ.
SC filed its opposition with the Court, including three declarations, on July 1, 2025 [Docket #67]. On August 5, 2025, when beginning to prepare for the upcoming hearing on MPH’s Corrected MSJ, SC’s counsel Gary Sedlik began to scrutinize MPH’s Corrected MSJ and discovered the fabricated legal citations and quotations for the first time. Id. at ¶7.
Id. Given the nature of multiple fabricated case citations through MPH’s brief, Mr. Sedlik’s letter urged Mr.
Mr. Sedlik also requested that MPH reimburse SC for its legal fees and costs associated with the preparation of an opposition to MPH’s Corrected MSJ (to be withdrawn) as well as associated costs relating to analysis and discovery of MPH’s fabricated citations. Id.
In his email, Mr. Russo acknowledged that MPH had used fabricated legal authority and agreed that MPH should withdraw its motion. Id.
Sedlik also reminded Mr. Russo that …significant fees were expended to oppose a motion based largely on fabricated cases. This is not fair or equitable to Support Community and I am not sure there is an argument to make that Support Community is entitled to anything other than 100% of the fees it spent to prepare the opposition.
Docket entry 82, 13 August 2025 · source · PDF · 114 pages
Docket text. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Withdraw Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt # 63) re 63 MOTION for Evidentiary Sanctions and for Summary Judgment filed by MPH International LLC. Responses due by 8/18/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jack Russo, # 2 Proposed Order)(Russo, Jack) (Filed on 8/13/2025) Modified on 8/15/2025 (kmm2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/13/2025)
6. The citation errors on secondary and tertiary points of law discovered by opposing counsel appear to have resulted from AI “hallucinations”—a known phenomenon where generative AI tools create fictitious case citations that appear authentic but do not correspond to actual published decisions. 7.
BOX 3238 | MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 (310) 439-9988 | GARY@SEDLIKGROUP.COM August 8, 2025 Jack Russo, Esq. Computer Law Group LLP 401 Florence Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Jrusso@computerlaw.com (via email only) Re: Use of fabricated legal authority in MPH filings and Associated FRCP, Rule 11 Violations [Support Community, Inc. v. MPH International LLC USDC Northern District of California, Case No.
While preparing for the upcoming hearing on MPH’s recently-filed Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), I went through the standard process of verifying the cases and citations cited by MPH in support of its Motion. I was shocked to discover that MPH’s Motion appears to contain multiple fabricated citations to cases that do not exist, multiple fabricated case quotations, and multiple cases cited for legal propositions clearly not supported by the text of the referenced court opinion. The list of fabricated cases, fabricated citations and fabricated/improper quotations includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Artificial Intelligence Corp. v.
App. 4th 22 (1991) o MPH cites to this case in three places in its Motion (pages 11, 12 and 17). o MPH presents a fabricated “quotation” from this fabricated case in support of a key section of its Motion, stating: “The rationale behind enforcing such provisions is 2 particularly strong in software development contracts, where timely identification of issues is critical. As explained by the court in Artificial Intelligence Corp., deemed acceptance provisions ‘protect against stale claims... encourage the recipient to inspect promptly and to voice any defects discovered...
Cal. 1998) o MPH cites to this case on page 19 of its Motion. o MPH purports to quote from the holding of this apparently fictitious case in support of its Motion, stating “As this District has recognized, ‘a breach of contract claim—including breach of an oral contract—accrues at the time of breach, which then starts the limitations period running.’ Creditors Collection Serv. of Sacramento v. Castegnaro, 17 F.
Bd. of Pension Comm'rs, 18 Cal. 2d 427, 430 (1941).” o This appears to be a fabricated quotation that does not exist in the Court’s opinion. • FNB Mortgage Corp. v. Pacific General Group, 76 Cal.
App. 4th 1116 (1999) o MPH cites to this case on page 17 of its Motion (immediately following the Dillon case). o MPH purports to directly quote from the opinion of this case with the following statement in the parenthetical of its citation: "[t]he continuing violation doctrine is not applicable to [breach of contract] causes”. o This appears to be a fabricated quotation that does not exist in the Court’s opinion. • Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. Am.
App. 4th 1536, it is a California state court case (not 9th Circuit case) that discusses the application of choice of law provisions and never mentions or discusses a “30-day limitations period.” Therefore, MPH’s citation to the case (albeit with an entirely fictitious citation) for this proposition is wholly improper. • Lewis v. YouTube, LLC, 197 Cal.