Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al.
S.D. New York · Nov 18, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court identified that plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated case law, misrepresented existing authorities, and quoted non-existent statutory provisions. Although the court characterized this as sanctionable conduct under Rule 11, it exercised its discretion to decline the imposition of formal sanctions, instead issuing a formal warning to counsel.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Marrero v. Camden Steel Co., 850 F. Supp. 188 (D.N.J. 1994); court identified this authority as non-existent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2001) for an FMLA proposition; court noted Baldwin does not mention the FMLA and involves FLSA/breach of contract issues. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Kennedy v. Cmty. Action Servs., 107 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Ind. 2000); court identified this authority as non-existent. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed a non-existent quote to Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014); court noted the quoted language does not appear in Johnson. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Counsel quoted non-existent provisions of NYLL § 215 (statutory language the court found was not present in the statute).
- Why it matters now
- Fabricated statutory quotes (NYLL §215) are as damning as fake cases — verify statutes against the code, not AI.
Why this matter is tracked
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. During the proceedings, the court identified that the plaintiff's counsel submitted an opposition brief containing multiple fabricated case citations, including non-existent decisions such as Marrero v. Camden Steel Co. and Kennedy v. Cmty. Action Servs. Additionally, counsel misrepresented the holding of Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., attributed non-existent quotes to Johnson v. City of Shelby, and quoted non-existent statutory language from NYLL § 215. While the court explicitly noted that this conduct violated the duty of reasonable inquiry under Rule 11, it declined to impose formal sanctions at this time, opting instead to issue a formal warning to counsel regarding future conduct.
Fabricated statutory quotes (NYLL §215) are as damning as fake cases — verify statutes against the code, not AI.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court did not name a specific tool, only identifying the conduct as sanctionable.
The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, following the plaintiff's submission of an opposition brief containing fabricated and misrepresented legal authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Marrero v. Camden Steel Co., 850 F. Supp. 188 (D.N.J. 1994); court identified this authority as non-existent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2001) for an FMLA proposition; court noted Baldwin does not mention the FMLA and involves FLSA/breach of contract issues.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Kennedy v. Cmty. Action Servs., 107 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Ind. 2000); court identified this authority as non-existent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed a non-existent quote to Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014); court noted the quoted language does not appear in Johnson.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Counsel quoted non-existent provisions of NYLL § 215 (statutory language the court found was not present in the statute).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al.?
- The court identified that plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated case law, misrepresented existing authorities, and quoted non-existent statutory provisions. Although the court characterized this as sanctionable conduct under Rule 11, it exercised its discretion to decline the imposition of formal sanctions, instead issuing a formal warning to counsel.
- Why does Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Fabricated statutory quotes (NYLL §215) are as damning as fake cases — verify statutes against the code, not AI.
- What does the public record establish about Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al.?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Jorge Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp., et al. 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.