Regan Wilkes, et al. v. Canyons School District, et al.
D. Utah · May 4, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Utah
- Record ID
- regan-wilkes-et-al-v-canyons-school-district-et-al-2026-05-04
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $7,000 monetary sanction against Plaintiffs' counsel and granted Defendants' motion for partial dismissal of the Second Cause of Action.
- Known monetary consequence
- $7,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned Plaintiffs' counsel $7,000 for violating Rule 11(b) by submitting an Amended Complaint containing fabricated case law. The court determined that counsel failed to perform a reasonable inquiry into the accuracy of the citations, rejecting the argument that AI software caused the errors.
The court reasoned that Rule 11(b) imposes a nondelegable duty on counsel to verify the accuracy of legal contentions. It found that counsel's reliance on non-existent cases and failure to verify them constituted a violation. The court rejected the 'AI distortion' defense, noting that the 'correct' cases cited in the supplement did not support the original propositions, and cited the court's prior admonishment of the same counsel for AI-related conduct as evidence of a pattern.
This case illustrates the judicial rejection of 'AI distortion' as a defense for fabricated citations. It reinforces that counsel's duty of verification is nondelegable and that courts will consider prior AI-related misconduct when determining appropriate sanctions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- Ordered To Show Cause
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- unspecified AI software
- Known monetary consequence
- $7,000
- Procedural posture
- Following a Motion to Dismiss, the court held an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding the use of non-existent case law. The court subsequently issued a Memorandum Decision and Order imposing monetary sanctions and granting partial dismissal of the Second Cause of Action.
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
Counsel admitted to using AI software to polish writing.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.