McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC
W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court struck the plaintiff's unauthorized sur-replies and issued a formal warning against further use of falsified legal authority. The court declined to dismiss the action with prejudice, citing the plaintiff's pro se status and limited access to legal research databases, but explicitly warned that future violations would trigger sanctions such as monetary penalties or dismissal.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that while pro se litigants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys, the court would exercise leniency regarding dismissal because the plaintiff lacked access to professional legal research databases to verify citations. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's 'garbled citation' explanation as not credible and emphasized that falsified citations waste judicial resources and cause reputational harm.
- Why it matters now
- Repeat pro-se hallucinations get pleadings struck but no fee-shift; move for strike early to clear the docket.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff previously filed a brief citing non-existent legal authority; the Court issued a warning against falsified citations (Dkt. 18). Outcome: Submission stricken out, and warning.
AI Use
Although AI was not named and Plaintiff denied intentional fabrication, the court considered the citation (Adamov, 779 F.3d 851, 860 (8th Cir. 2015)) to be plainly fictitious. It noted the possibility that Plaintiff used generative AI tools, given the fabricated citation's plausible-sounding structure and mismatch with existing precedent.
Hallucination Details
Plaintiff submitted fabricated legal authorities in at least two filings, despite being explicitly warned by the court after the first incident. The false case cited in her sur-reply could not be located in any legal database. When asked to produce it, she responded that she had likely “garbled” the citation but provided no plausible alternative or correction.
Ruling/Sanction
The court declined to dismiss the action as a sanction, citing the limitations pro se litigants face in accessing reliable legal research tools. However, it granted the defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s two unauthorized sur-replies and formally warned her that further violations of Rule 11 would lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, filing restrictions, or dismissal.
Repeat pro-se hallucinations get pleadings struck but no fee-shift; move for strike early to clear the docket.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the citation's structure suggested the use of generative AI tools.
The court ruled on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, granting both in part and denying them in part.
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: Case Law | Plaintiff previously filed a brief citing non-existent legal authority; the Court issued a warning against falsified citations (Dkt. 18).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's sur-reply cited a non-existent case; the Court found the citation fictitious and noted the closest real case does not support the asserted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC?
- The court struck the plaintiff's unauthorized sur-replies and issued a formal warning against further use of falsified legal authority. The court declined to dismiss the action with prejudice, citing the plaintiff's pro se status and limited access to legal research databases, but explicitly warned that future violations would trigger sanctions such as monetary penalties or dismissal.
- Why does McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- Repeat pro-se hallucinations get pleadings struck but no fee-shift; move for strike early to clear the docket.
- What does the public record establish about McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC?
- 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 McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC 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.