Berry v. Stewart
D. Kansas · Nov 14, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a show cause order requiring defense counsel to explain the inclusion of a fabricated forum-selection clause and a non-existent case citation in their briefing. The court scheduled a hearing to determine if sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 are warranted and whether to refer counsel to disciplinary boards.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the briefing cited a forum-selection clause not found in the parties' contract and a non-existent case, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., which failed verification against CM/ECF records and district docketing standards.
- Why it matters now
- Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12. Outcome: At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client. In the November 2024 Show Cause Order, Judge Robinson noted that: "First, the briefing does not cite the forum-selection clause from the contract between the parties; instead, it cites and quotes a forum-selection clause that appears nowhere in the papers submitted by the parties. Second, Defendant’s reply brief includes a citation, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-CV-00262-JPM, 2020 WL 1882334 (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2020), in which the court purportedly “transferred a case to the Southern District of Texas because the majority of the witnesses were located in Texas. The court found that the burden on the witnesses outweighed the convenience of litigating the case in Kansas.” As far as the Court can tell, this case does not exist. The Westlaw database number pulls up no case; the Court has found no case in CM/ECF between the parties “Hogan” and “Allstate Insurance Co.” Moreover, docket numbers in this district have at least four digits—not three—after the case-type designation, and there is no judge in this district with the initials “JPM.”"During the show cause hearing (Transcript), Counsel apologised and pledged to reimburse the other side's costs, as well as his client's.
Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Order to Show Cause issued November 14, 2024, requiring counsel to appear at a hearing on December 11, 2024.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a non-existent case, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co.; Westlaw citation returns no case, no CM/ECF case exists, docket format is invalid for D. Kan., and no judge with initials JPM sits in the district.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Berry v. Stewart?
- The court issued a show cause order requiring defense counsel to explain the inclusion of a fabricated forum-selection clause and a non-existent case citation in their briefing. The court scheduled a hearing to determine if sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 are warranted and whether to refer counsel to disciplinary boards.
- Why does Berry v. Stewart matter for legal AI risk?
- Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
- What does the public record establish about Berry v. Stewart?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Berry v. Stewart summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.