Docket entry 72, 9 July 2026 · source · PDF · 2 pages
Docket text. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Accordingly, by no later than July 16, 2026, Plaintiffs and their counsel are hereby ORDERED to show cause why the hallucinated citations and quotations and legal mischaracterizations in Plaintiffs' brief should not be sanctioned, including striking Plaintiffs' Opposition or dismissing Plaintiffs' claims. As part of the show-cause filing, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to submit sworn declarations from all licensed attorneys responsible for the brief and citations (regardless of whether that attorney signed the brief) that explain: (i) their role in drafting or supervising the brief; (ii) how the fabricated cases and quotations were generated; (iii) all steps taken to verify the accuracy, veracity, and existence of the quotations and citations in the brief; (iv) all bases for the assertion in their brief that the following cases support their respective propositions oflaw and parentheticals: Complaint of Tecomar, SA., 765 F. Supp. 1150, 1153-54 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (Pis.' Opp at 5); Kingstate Oil v. M/V Green Star, 815 F.2d 918, 922 (3d Cir. 1987) (Pis.' Opp. at 9); and (v) any other information that indicates how their involvement in the brief is consistent with that attorney's duty of candor to the Court and their other professional responsibilities. Plaintiffs and their counsel are further ORDERED to append to their filings copies of each cited legal authority (including the treatise cited on page 5 of Plaintiffs' Opposition brief); if they cannot provide such copies, they shall state so in their declaration and why. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 7/9/2026) (mml) (Entered: 07/09/2026)
71. In its Reply, COSCO apprised the Court of potentially fabricated citations in Plaintiffs’ Opposition brief. Dkt.
71 at 8 (“[COSCO] was unable to locate the purported direct quote [in Plaintiffs’ brief] anywhere within the Hollander decision.”). The Court thereafter undertook an independent review of the cases and authorities cited in Plaintiffs’ Opposition brief and now concludes that Plaintiffs’ brief contains nu merous citations to nonexistent cases and nonexistent quotations. As illustrative example s, the Court conducted a search for the following quotes and cases to no avail: • “A deviation which exposes the cargo to risks not contemplated by the parties is a fundamental breach going to the essence of the contract.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v.
Accordingly, by no later than July 16, 2026, Plaintiffs and their counsel are hereby ORDERED to show cause why the hallucinated citations and quotations and legal mischaracterizations in Plaintiffs’ brief should not be sanctioned, including striking Plaintiffs’ Opposition or dis missing Plaintiffs’ clai ms.