Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC
M.D. Florida · May 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. Florida
- Record ID
- stringer-v-white-cap-supply-holdings-llc-2026-05-14
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to show cause regarding the filing's content.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified widespread miscitations, fabricated quotes, and unsupported legal theories in the plaintiff's response. Finding these errors exceeded excusable negligence, the court signaled a potential violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to show cause regarding the potential use of AI in generating the submission.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's response contained errors beyond 'normal excusable mistakes,' specifically citing the inclusion of non-existent facts and legal theories, which raised concerns under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and suggested the impermissible use of AI.
This case highlights the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It serves as a warning that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all citations and factual assertions, regardless of the research tools employed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Artificial Intelligence programs
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and concurrently announced the issuance of an order to show cause regarding the plaintiff's counsel's conduct in the response filing.
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 explicitly referenced the potential use of 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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.