Docket entry 96, 20 November 2025 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Docket text. ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON ATTORNEY JAMES DAL BON. Re: ECF 90, 92, 94 . The motions at ECF 81 and 89 are stricken without leave to refile; Dal Bon is ordered to pay the Clerk of Court $250 by 12/5/2025; and Dal Bon is referred to the Courts Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/20/2025. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2025) (Main Document 96 replaced on 11/20/2025) (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2025)
23-cv-01121-NC ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON ATTORNEY JAMES DAL BON Re: ECF 90, 92, 94 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, ECF 81, followed by a corrected motion on October 28, 2025, ECF 89. Upon review of the corrected motion, the Court found the memorandum included 8 quotations supposedly attributable to a real case that do not actually appear in the case text, and one nonexistent case, “Reed v. ZipRecruiter, Inc., 2021 WL 4453429, at *3–4 (C.D.
July 19, 2021).” ECF 89 at 9:19–22, 13:25–28, 15:4–7, 15:15–17, 15:17–19, 15:25– 27, 16:8–9, 16:11–14, 19–20. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s attorney James Dal Bon to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) and referred to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct under Civil Local Rule 11-6 for providing fabricated caselaw to the Court. Dal Bon filed a response, ECF 92, and a proof of service averring that he provided the Court’s order to show cause to his client, ECF 93.
DISCUSSION A. Dal Bon Violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and Civil Local Rule 11-4 Of particular concern to courts today is the rise in non-existent cases and quotations hallucinated by artificial intelligence tools. See U.S. v.
2025). These fictitious cases often look “like a real case with a case name; a citation to the Federal Supplement, which is the reporter that publishes opinions from federal district courts; identification of a district court; and the year for the decision.” Id. at 1065. Against this backdrop, the Second Circuit has held that, “[a]t the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely. . . . to ensure that the arguments made based on those authorities are ‘warranted by existing law,’ . . . or otherwise ‘legally tenable.’” Park v.
2023). In response to the order to show cause, Dal Bon “acknowledges without reservation” that his motion “contained one non-existent case citation.” ECF 92 at 2. As to the false case quotations observed by the Court, Dal Bon appears to have reviewed different quotes than those the Court was referring to.
ECF 89 at 1. Dal Bon “emphasize[s] there was no intent to deceive the Court” and states that he has reviewed all the caselaw in the motion to ensure no additional hallucinated cases and has “established a mandatory verification checklist” to avoid similar errors in future court filings. ECF 92 at 4.
1993). Despite his intentions, Dal Bon confirms that his use of AI led him to submit a hallucinated case to the Court through his motion. He has therefore violated Rule 11(b).
Sep. 9, 2025) (“[S]ubmission of citations to nonexistent cases, on its own, constitutes a violation of FRCP 11(b).”); Oneto v. Watson, No.