Eric Hildebrandt v. siParadigm LLC et al.
D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2025 · Jamel K. Semper
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. New Jersey
- Record ID
- eric-hildebrandt-v-siparadigm-llc-et-al-2025-12-31
- Observed outcome
- The Consolidated Complaint was dismissed sua sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8; the Court refused to consider the supplemental filing or the errata containing fabricated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, citing excessive length and unintelligibility. It explicitly refused to consider fabricated case law and AI-generated artifacts, treating any arguments supported by such material as unsupported. The Court also denied counsel's request to submit corrected filings.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental Filing contained forty-three identified instances of fabricated citations or case law; Court declined to consider the filing and treated those propositions as unsupported. || Fabricated: Case Law | Consolidated Complaint was 'replete with citations to irrelevant, and sometimes fabricated, case law' across many paragraphs; Court refused to credit those citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants noted several incorrect/inaccurate citations in the Consolidated Complaint, including two cases cited over fifty times that did not support Plaintiffs' propositions; counsel's errata did not cure these inaccuracies. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs' Opposition contained AI drafting artifacts and unchecked inserted text (e.g., 'Let me know when you’d like to proceed to the next section: Count Eight . . .'), evidencing unverified AI-generated material and potential false quotations in submissions.
Leaving AI prompt artifacts in a filing is strict-liability malpractice — require a human proofread pass before any AI-assisted brief ships.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Citations
- Fabricated Case Law
- Unchecked AI Drafting Artifacts
- Failure To Verify AI Generated Content
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The Court sua sponte dismissed the Consolidated Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and denied as moot the Defendants' pending motion to strike and motion to dismiss.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Counsel admitted to using AI tools but did not specify which ones.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.