Louisiana · federal district court · 2026

Kattom v. Bondi

District Court, W.D. Louisiana, 6 March 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · W.D. La.

  1. Court. District Court, W.D. LouisianaCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 6 March 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 1:25-cv-01497DOCKET
  5. Judge. Jerry Edwards, JrJUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 5 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

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 28, 6 March 2026 · source · PDF · 4 pages

Docket text. ORDER AND REASONS re 14 Order on Motion for TRO, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, IT IS ORDERED that Kenneth A. Mayeaux is personally SANCTIONED for his conduct in this case in the amount of $1,000. This amount must be paid by May eaux personally and may not be paid by his law firm.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanction is to be paid by Friday, April 3, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to: Clerk, United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 515 Murray Street, Suite 105 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301. Signed by Judge Jerry Edwards, Jr on 3/6/2026. (crt,Muncey, E)

Doc. 14), Mayeaux cited several incorrect quotations and to cases that did not exist. See id. at 3–4.

See id. at 3–4. The Court must now address the applicable sanctions for Mayeaux’s hallucinated cases . Having carefully considered Mayeaux’s submissions and the applicable law, this Order follows.

17 at 4. Despite never having used generative AI, Mayeaux understood the risks associated with its use, including the potential for generating inaccurate or fabricated legal authority. See id.

2025)). Just as the duty remains unchanged, so too 1 Specifically, Mayeaux assets that “[h]e has undertaken concrete remedial measures, including enrolling in CLEs on AI-assisted legal practice, review of governing ethical guidance, and developing strengthened verification protocols to ensure that all authorities are independently confirmed before filing ….” See id. at 12. do the standards for assessing sanctions applicable to a lawyer’s use of hallucinated cases. See id. at **5–6 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Lee v.

Aug. 28, 2025) (reviewing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11’s governance of sanctions and ordering a $1,000 sanction for attorney’s use of hallucinated cases). The Court commends Mayeaux for his candor, honesty, and the remedial measures he has undertaken since the filing of the underlying Motion.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, W.D. Louisiana, from Louisiana, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on my files