E.D. California magistrate judge finds a pro se plaintiff's remand motion cited four cases for quotations they do not contain

What happened

The plaintiff, an author whose Kindle Direct Publishing account was terminated, sued Amazon in Sacramento Superior Court on seven state-law claims and sought $180,500. Amazon removed on diversity grounds. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that Amazon waited until the 30th day to remove, that Sacramento was the only appropriate forum, and that federal court was improper for claims involving California public policy.

Amazon's opposition pointed out that the plaintiff had cited cases that were fabrications or misrepresentations. The court then listed four examples in a footnote:

• A quotation about "an abusive manipulation of the removal statute" attributed to "In re Shell Oil Co. 932 F.2d at 420." The court said that citation is for Pierre v. I.N.S., 932 F.2d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1991), an immigration case that does not address removal or remand.
• A second quotation, about courts scrutinizing last-day removals before an adverse state-court ruling, attributed to the same citation. The court called the citation and quotation incorrect.
• A quotation that "removal statutes are not to be used as tools of gamesmanship," attributed to Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League, 415 U.S. 605, 628. The court said the case has no such quotation and does not deal with removal.
• A statement that "[a]ll doubts must be resolved in favor of remand," attributed to University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799. The court said that case also lacks the quotation and does not deal with removal.

What the court said

On the merits, the court found removal timely, the parties completely diverse, and the amount in controversy met. It said it knew of no authority requiring remand because a defendant removed on the last permissible day, and it denied remand.

On the citations, the court wrote that it "is troubled by these patently incorrect quotations and assertions" (p. 5). It quoted another judge in the district to say Rule 11 applies to pro se parties, that "whether he uses or does not use generative AI or some other tool, Rule 11 still applies," and that misrepresentations may be sanctionable under Rule 11(b) and the court's inherent authority (p. 5-6). It concluded that "plaintiff is on notice that sanctions may issue for future filings that contain misrepresentations" (p. 6). No sanction was imposed now.

Separately, the plaintiff did not respond to Amazon's motion to compel arbitration. The court gave him 14 days to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or to file a response.

What it means for your firm

• A court may not need to find AI use to act. This order warns on the basis of the content alone, and says the rule applies "regardless of whether" AI was used.
• The failure mode here is misattribution: real citations attached to quotations the case does not contain. A check that confirms a citation resolves to some case would not catch it. Our reading: you need to check that the case says what the brief says it says.
• Opposing counsel can raise this. The court acted after the defendant flagged the problem in its opposition.
• Pro se opponents are a growing source of these filings. Our reading: the warning here is an early step, and the same facts could lead to sanctions on a repeat.
• Remand and removal fights are short and citation-driven, which makes a fabricated quotation easy to check and worth checking.

What to do Monday

1. When you receive a pro se motion, verify every quoted passage against the cited page, not only the case name and reporter citation.
2. If a citation resolves to a different case than the brief names, include both the cited case and the actual case at that citation in your opposition, as the court did here.
3. Flag misdescribed authorities in a short, separate section of your opposition so the court can act on them directly.
4. Calendar a follow-up for any warning order, since the court said future misrepresentations may draw sanctions.

Sources

• Court record: Thornton v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:26-cv-2257-DC-JDP (PS), ECF No. 12 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2026)
• AI Vortex Legal AI Risk record for this matter (Structured record in the public case database)

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.