Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
1:25-cv-02857
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michael Cordero Romero, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in limine to preclude new evidence related to Goldman Sachs Bank’s motion to compel arbitration.
- Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court identified two erroneous citations—one misquoted and one fictitious.
- The misquoted citation was to a real case, but it did not support Plaintiff’s assertion; the other citation referenced a non-existent case.
- The Court noted that such fictitious citations may suggest the use of generative AI tools, which are known to fabricate legal authority.
- While the Court extended leniency to Plaintiff as a pro se litigant, it reminded all parties of the obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 regarding the accuracy of legal filings.
- The order served as a warning that future submission of fictitious citations may be viewed as bad faith and could result in sanctions under Rule 11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new evidence should be precluded from reply briefing | Cites cases to argue that new evidence is not permitted | Not provided | Court did not rule on merits; briefing still in process |
| Use of fictitious or misquoted legal citations | Relied on AI-generated or incorrect citations | Not provided | Court did not sanction, but issued warning about conduct |
| Consequences for submitting false legal authorities | Did not address | Not provided | Warned of Rule 11 liability for fictitious submissions |
| Obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for pro se litigants | Not explicitly addressed | Not provided | Reaffirmed Rule 11 applies to all parties, including pro se |
Key Cases Cited
- US v. Cohen, 724 F. Supp. 3d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (imposing sanctions for citing AI-generated fake cases)
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning submission of fictitious cases generated by AI)
- Maduakolam v. Columbia U., 866 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1989) (affirming Rule 11 applies to pro se and represented litigants)
- ATSI Commun., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 579 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009) (describing Rule 11 sanctions procedures and safe harbor provision)