Docket entry 83, 4 December 2025 · source · PDF · 12 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion for Sanctions Signed by Judge David Barlow on 12/04/2025. (sg) (Entered: 12/04/2025)
11 advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment). Case 2:24-cv-00209-DBB-DBP Document 83 Filed 12/04/25 PageID.1225 Page 7 of 12 to nonexistent cases, incorrectly claimed that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allowed leave to amend, asserted allegedly new facts that did not alter the applicability of the statute of limitations, raised arguments the court had already objected to, and relied on facts for the promissory estoppel claim that were not included in the Second Amended Counterclaim. 45 In response, Defendants argue that the “claims regarding poorly sourced cases” are moot because the SAC was stricken by the court.
46 Because the court concludes that Mr. Crane’s use of hallucinated47 cases violated Rule 11, it need not reach the other possible violations in this pleading. In the Opposition, Mr.
In the Opposition, Mr. Crane included citations to two hallucinated cases, Rawson v. Mathews, 212 P.3d 752, 756–57 (Utah 2009) and Equilon Enters. v.
Malley-Duff & Assocs., 483 U.S. 143, 156 (1987) by attributing language to it that does not exist in the case. See Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss Second Am.
And the client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents.”55 Mr. Crane indicates that the hallucinated cases came from “a colleague’s writings.”56 This defense has been rejected by courts across the country.57 Indeed, “every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.”58 This duty, according to the Supreme Court, is a “nondelegable responsibility.”59 And Mr. Crane does not identify what reasonable inquiry he made to assure that the borrowed caselaw was real.
For these reasons, Mr. Crane violated Rule 11(b)(2) by filing the Opposition with the hallucinated cases. 51 Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 398.
Supp. 3d at 448) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. ¶ 16 (sanctioning an attorney for using hallucinated cases in their briefing) (cleaned up). 56 Opp’n 3.
The court disagrees. While the briefing of this issue has caused both Plaintiffs and the court to expend a certain amount of time, a significant portion of Plaintiffs’ argument for sanctions is not well taken.69 The hallucinated cases are the only basis for a Rule 11 violation; Plaintiffs’ other arguments for Rule 11 sanctions consumed additional time and resources needlessly. Mr.