Mata v. Avianca: timeline, sanction and what followed
A dated timeline from the court docket, the sanction and its amount, and what the public corpus holds since. Court documents read on ; counts computed from the corpus refreshed 2026-10-22.
The outcome
$5,000 penalty and letters to the client and judges, June 22, 2023.Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned two attorneys and their law firm under Rule 11 and, alternatively, the court's inherent power, for submitting fabricated decisions and then standing by them. The same day he dismissed the underlying injury claim as time-barred. Later in the corpus: 15 of 2,197 records dated after the sanction name this case.
Timeline from the docket
Each entry gives the filing or signing date on the document and links the docket entry on CourtListener. ECF numbers are the court's own.
- Complaint filed in state court
The plaintiff sues Avianca, Inc. in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, over a knee injury on a flight that arrived on or about August 28, 2019. A first complaint, filed July 20, 2020, had been voluntarily dismissed in January 2022.
ECF 55 - Removed to federal court
Avianca removes the case to the Southern District of New York, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention. Docket 1:22-cv-01461, Judge P. Kevin Castel.
ECF 1 - Opposition cites cases that do not exist
Plaintiff's counsel files an affirmation in opposition arguing the limitation period was tolled by Avianca's bankruptcy stay. It relies on decisions that, the court later finds, do not exist.
ECF 21 - Defendant says it cannot find the cases
Avianca's reply states that it was unable to locate most of the case law cited in the opposition.
ECF 24 - Counsel files the 'opinions'
Counsel files an affidavit annexing excerpts of Varghese, Shaboon, Petersen, Martinez, Durden and Miller. The court later finds these were generated by ChatGPT and are not real decisions.
ECF 29 - Order to show cause
The court calls the situation "unprecedented": six of the submitted cases "appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations." The Eleventh Circuit's clerk confirmed that no Varghese case exists in that court. Counsel must show cause why sanctions should not issue.
ECF 31 - Counsel discloses the ChatGPT use
A responding affidavit says the cited material came from ChatGPT. The sanctions opinion later says the respondents "did not begin to dribble out the truth until May 25."
ECF 32 - Second order to show cause
The court widens the inquiry: respondents must show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and (c), 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court's inherent power, including for a false notarization on the April 25 affidavit. Hearing set for June 8.
ECF 33 - Sanctions hearing
Judge Castel hears the respondents under oath. The transcript is filed June 16.
ECF 52 - Sanctions imposed: $5,000 and letters
Under Rule 11 and, alternatively, the court's inherent authority, the court imposes a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally on the two attorneys and their law firm, payable into the court's registry within 14 days, and orders letters to the client and to each judge whose name was invoked on a fake opinion. It finds bad faith based on conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements, declines to sanction separately under § 1927, orders no fee reimbursement because Avianca did not ask for any, and does not require an apology.
ECF 54 - Case dismissed as time-barred
In a separate opinion the same day, the court grants Avianca's motion: the claim was filed after the Montreal Convention's two-year period and bankruptcy-stay tolling does not apply.
ECF 55 - Penalty transferred
Administrative order directing the Clerk to transfer the $5,000 penalty from the court's registry to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Fund.
ECF 56 - Compliance letter filed
Respondents' counsel writes to the court about compliance with sections (a) and (b) of the June 22 order, the letters to the client and to the judges.
ECF 57
What the public record shows since
Counted by script over the public corpus refreshed 2026-10-22 (latest tracked decision 2026-10-15): 2,197 records are dated after June 22, 2023; 863 of them involve a lawyer; 15 name Mata v. Avianca in their text, and 3 of those carry a USD amount above $1. A mention is not proof that a court relied on the case.
Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations · Browse records by consequence
Read the explainer
For a plain-language walk-through of the case and what it means for a firm's AI policy, see Mata v. Avianca explained on aivortex.io.
Before you rely on this
This page summarizes court filings and a corpus count; it is not legal advice. Read the orders themselves before citing them. The corpus record for this case is derived from a third-party database; the sanction and amount above come from the court's own opinion.
Primary sources (read October 22, 2026)
Questions this page answers
- What happened in Mata v. Avianca?
- Plaintiff's lawyers opposed a motion to dismiss with a brief citing court decisions that did not exist, generated by ChatGPT. After Avianca and then the court could not find them, the lawyers stood by the citations for weeks. On June 22, 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctioned the two attorneys and their law firm, and dismissed the underlying case as time-barred the same day.
- How much was the Mata v. Avianca sanction?
- $5,000, imposed jointly and severally on the two attorneys and their law firm and payable into the court's registry within 14 days (ECF 54, conclusion, item d). The court also ordered letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as the author of a fake opinion. It ordered no payment of Avianca's fees because Avianca did not seek any.
- Under which rule was Mata v. Avianca decided?
- The court sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and, alternatively, its inherent power. It declined to impose a separate sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because the fake citations caused harm but not dilatory tactics or delay. See the Rule 11 page for the rule text.
- Was Mata v. Avianca decided on the merits?
- No. The same day as the sanctions opinion, the court granted Avianca's motion to dismiss because the claim was filed after the Montreal Convention's two-year period, and bankruptcy-stay tolling did not apply. Judgment for the defendant was entered July 7, 2023.
- How many later cases cite Mata v. Avianca?
- 15 of the 2,197 public records in the AI Vortex corpus dated after June 22, 2023 name Mata v. Avianca in their summary, outcome, lesson or hallucination-items text, counted by script on the corpus refreshed 2026-10-22. The corpus holds 863 later records where the responsible party is a lawyer.