Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley
S.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a show cause order requiring the pro se plaintiffs to justify their repeated use of fabricated legal citations and misrepresented record evidence. The plaintiffs must file a response by February 25, 2026, including a signed certification detailing their verification process for all legal and factual assertions to avoid further sanctions under Rule 11.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited In re: Marriage of Smith, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1018 (2011), which the court identified as a non-existent authority as presented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed the quotation "Dismissal based on a legal defense does not equate to frivolity." to Parekh; court found Parekh contains no such language. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation about use of confidential information to In re Shell Oil Refinery; court found the quoted material is not in that case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 14-cv-2524, 2016 WL 4131149 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), which the court found does not exist as cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Harris v. City of Auburn, 2018 WL 3329858 (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2018), which the court determined was a mis-citation (the cited decision did not exist as presented). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Avery v. Ward, 2014 WL 4748452, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2014), which the court found does not exist as cited. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) that does not appear in that opinion; court found the quotation fabricated/misattributed. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs claimed the magistrate's R&R contained language calling them 'serial litigants' and accusing them of filing to 'harass' and being 'retaliatory'; the court found those characterizations do not appear in the R&R.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order; Order to certify review of citations.
Why this matter is tracked
In a contract dispute, the S.D. Florida court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, awarding partial attorneys' fees to the defendant. The court identified that the pro se plaintiffs repeatedly submitted filings containing over fifty instances of fabricated case law, misattributed quotations, and misrepresented court records. Despite a prior admonition from the magistrate judge to ensure citation accuracy, the plaintiffs continued to submit hallucinated authorities in their objections. Consequently, the court overruled the plaintiffs' objections and issued a show cause order requiring the plaintiffs to explain why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. The court mandated that any response include a signed certification verifying the accuracy of all cited authorities and factual assertions.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order; Order to certify review of citations.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the plaintiffs' frequent use of AI to generate hallucinated citations.
Order adopting magistrate's report and recommendation, overruling objections, and issuing a show cause order regarding potential Rule 11 sanctions.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited In re: Marriage of Smith, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1007, 1018 (2011), which the court identified as a non-existent authority as presented.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed the quotation "Dismissal based on a legal defense does not equate to frivolity." to Parekh; court found Parekh contains no such language.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation about use of confidential information to In re Shell Oil Refinery; court found the quoted material is not in that case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Lopez v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 14-cv-2524, 2016 WL 4131149 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), which the court found does not exist as cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Harris v. City of Auburn, 2018 WL 3329858 (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2018), which the court determined was a mis-citation (the cited decision did not exist as presented).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Avery v. Ward, 2014 WL 4748452, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2014), which the court found does not exist as cited.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) that does not appear in that opinion; court found the quotation fabricated/misattributed.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiffs claimed the magistrate's R&R contained language calling them 'serial litigants' and accusing them of filing to 'harass' and being 'retaliatory'; the court found those characterizations do not appear in the R&R.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley?
- The court issued a show cause order requiring the pro se plaintiffs to justify their repeated use of fabricated legal citations and misrepresented record evidence. The plaintiffs must file a response by February 25, 2026, including a signed certification detailing their verification process for all legal and factual assertions to avoid further sanctions under Rule 11.
- Why does Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order; Order to certify review of citations.
- What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley?
- 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 Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley 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.