Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)
W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Washington
- Record ID
- mitchell-taylor-button-et-al-v-john-jimison-1-2025-10-17
- Observed outcome
- The Court granted the motion to strike the Defendant's answer and ordered the Plaintiffs to include a signed certification of accuracy for all future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court sanctioned the Plaintiffs for submitting fabricated case law and quotes, likely generated by AI. The order requires Plaintiffs to include a signed certification on all future filings confirming the validity of every cited decision and the accuracy of all quoted language, under penalty of having non-compliant filings stricken.
The Court determined that Plaintiffs' filings contained multiple non-existent cases and misattributed quotes, violating the duty of accuracy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Court reasoned that a mandatory certification requirement was necessary to ensure the integrity of future submissions and to address the apparent reliance on artificial intelligence for legal research.
This case illustrates the judicial response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se litigation. It establishes a clear procedural control—a mandatory certification of authority—that courts may impose to mitigate the risk of fabricated citations and ensure compliance with Rule 11.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- False Quotes
- Hallucinated Citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendant's answer, with an additional directive requiring Plaintiffs to provide a signed certification for all future filings due to the submission of fabricated legal authorities.
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
The Court noted Plaintiffs should not rely on artificial intelligence programs.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations and quoted language before filing.
- Establish a formal review process to confirm the existence and accuracy of every authority cited in legal briefs.
- Restrict the use of generative AI for legal research and drafting unless outputs are independently verified against primary sources.
- Ensure that all filings comply with local court orders regarding the certification of legal research accuracy.