Falkenstein v. Niles

Why this matter warrants attention

False Quotes: Case Law | The motion placed in quotation marks language attributing personal trademark-infringement liability to an individual who was the “moving, active conscious force behind the [defendant’s] infringement.” The Court stated that Yost does not contain that language and instead says an officer may be liable for torts he “authorizes or directs or in which he participates.” Outcome: Counsel was ordered to explain the disputed citations, quotations, factual representations, and AI use at the motions hearing; no Rule 11 violation or sanction was determined.. The Court identified multiple citation and quotation problems in Defendants’ motion to dismiss, reply, and preliminary-injunction opposition. The filings attributed nonexistent or inaccurate quotations to Yost, Herb Reed, and Oakland Tribune; attributed a successor-in-interest proposition to Cumulus Media that the Court could not locate; misrepresented Complaint paragraph 21; and relied on Barr while overlooking its statement that formalities of quasi-corporate organization are not required. Counsel had disclosed and certified the use of generative AI in portions of some filings, while denying AI use in the motion to dismiss. The Court ordered counsel to explain the sources of the authorities and representations, the extent of AI assistance, and the verification steps taken, but expressly made no finding of an ethical or Rule 11 violation.