What happened

Equifax moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the plaintiff's opposition cited cases that did not exist. On September 9, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause. It said it was considering three sanctions: dismissal with prejudice, an order to pay Equifax's fees for responding to the "hallucinated citations," and a certification requirement. It stayed the case in the meantime.

In her response, the plaintiff said no generative AI tool was used to draft any filing. She said any duplicate or blank sections of the complaint "may appear to have resulted from formatting or uploading errors." She acknowledged "possible citation verification errors," said she did not knowingly fabricate authority, and said she corrected the errors in a formal filing.

The order on the sanctions does not list the individual fake citations. Those are in the earlier order (Dkt. 73), which is not part of this record.

What the court said

The court did not accept her explanation: it found that her claim that the cases were "citation verification errors" was not credible, and it repeated its earlier view that "these errors are hallmarks of nonexistent cases created through artificial intelligence" (p. 2). It added that including nonexistent authority in a brief is a violation of the Rule 11 certification, quoting a District of Colorado decision (p. 2-3).

On the remedy, the court took her at her word on the factual allegations in the complaint and did not dismiss. It ordered her to include in all future correspondence with opposing counsel, including discovery responses, and in all future court filings, a statement under penalty of perjury that says whether generative AI was used, names the tool, and certifies she personally reviewed the document and that all citations and quotations refer to existing authority. It cited Malkeet Lnu v. Blanche, 177 F.4th 1014, 1032 (9th Cir. 2026). Because she committed to follow court directives, it did not order fees, but warned it "may impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal, for any future violations" (p. 3). It lifted the stay.

What it means for your firm

  • Courts are moving beyond a warning for pro se parties. This order reaches communications with opposing counsel and discovery responses, not only court filings, so your firm will receive the certifications.
  • If you are opposing counsel, you may now see a sworn statement about AI use attached to correspondence. Our reading: that statement is a record you can point to if later filings contain bad citations.
  • A denial of AI use did not protect the plaintiff. The court looked at the content of the citations and called the "verification error" explanation not credible.
  • If your firm files for a client in this district, expect that the court treats nonexistent citations as a Rule 11 problem regardless of who signed. Our reading: the same reasoning applies to a lawyer's signature.
  • Fee-shifting was on the table. If you are the responding party, keep time records of work spent on bad citations in case a court asks.

What to do Monday

  1. Add a check to your response workflow that pulls every authority in the opposing brief and logs any that do not exist or do not support the stated proposition.
  2. Track your time and fees spent addressing fabricated or misdescribed citations so you can support a fee request if a court invites one.
  3. If you represent a party in the Western District of Washington, ask the plaintiff's side to confirm in writing whether any citation came from a generative AI tool before you file a Rule 11 motion.
  4. Prepare a short internal template for your own filings that states a human attorney read every cited case, since courts may start asking for it.

Sources

Questions and answers

Did the court dismiss the case?

No. It said it took the plaintiff at her word on the factual allegations in her complaint, so the remaining claims stay. It lifted the stay and warned that dismissal is possible for future violations.

Did the plaintiff have to pay Equifax's fees?

No. The court elected not to require it because she committed to comply with the court's directives going forward.

What exactly must the plaintiff certify now?

In every future filing and every communication with opposing counsel, she must state under penalty of perjury whether generative AI was used, name the tool, and certify that she personally reviewed the document and that its citations, quotations and factual assertions are real and supported.

Operational information, not legal advice. Facts come from the court record linked under Sources, read on Oct 21, 2026. The reading of what it means for your firm is ours. A source link does not replace the full docket or later history.