Published opinion, 29 September 2026 · source · PDF · 12 pages
Frost pointed out that, within “the first two pages” of plaintiff’s argument section, eight of the cases that plaintiff cited purportedly in support of her argument w ere either nonexistent or completely unsupportive.
The court initially found that since plaintiff merely repeated many of the defects from her original complaint in her verified complaint, “[a] second amendment is unlikely 1-25-2257 6 to correct this, especially as the current pleading is verified.” The court then added, “An additional reason to dismiss plaintiff ’s illogical and improperly pled claims is plaintiff ’s heavy reliance on Al-hallucinated cases .” The court said that one alleged case citation in plaintiff’s verified complaint and eight alleged citations in her response did not exist.
The court criticized plaintiff’s pleadings as “bear[ing] no relationship to the agreements” underlying her claims and found that plaintiff had “brazenly” misstated or fabricated the law, and lead defendants and the court on a “wild goose chase.” The court concluded that plaintiff’s multiple pleading deficiencies did not warrant a further opportunity to amend, ordering plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice. ¶ 17 On September 25, 2025, plaintiff filed a “motion to reconsider and vacate dismissal with prejudice *** and to set a schedule for filing a second amended complaint.” 5 Plaintiff did not address alleged use of AI -hallucinated cases; rather, she argued in substance that the […]
1-25-2257 7 meet the standard for reconsideration under Illinois law and “several counts of the second amended complaint” are not curable. The court further referenced the “AI Hallucinated cases” in plaintiff’s briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss. This appeal follows. ¶ 19 ANALYSIS ¶ 20 On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in (1) granting defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice and (2) denying her motion to reconsider.