Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc.
2:24-cv-00836
| E.D. La. | Aug 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs' counsel, David C. Pellegrin, filed a memorandum opposing a motion to dismiss, citing a case and a quotation that did not exist or were misattributed.
- The federal court identified the fabricated and inaccurate citations during its review of the opposition brief.
- Pellegrin admitted to using Google Gemini (AI) to draft the brief and failed to verify the existence or accuracy of the cited authorities.
- A show cause hearing was set for Pellegrin to address possible sanctions for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).
- Pellegrin argued mitigating factors, including candor, remedial education, previous discipline-free practice, and personal health issues.
- The court imposed a $1,000 personal sanction and referred Pellegrin to the court's disciplinary committee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of fabricated or inaccurate citations | Pellegrin argued the errors were limited, AI's faults were unintentional, and underlying law supported his contentions. | Such conduct violates Rule 11 and undermines trust. | Pellegrin violated Rule 11 by failing to verify citations; sanction imposed. |
| Severity of sanction | Requested leniency due to remorse, candor, mitigation, and limitations of harm. | Stressed the need for meaningful deterrence. | $1,000 personal sanction and referral to disciplinary body. |
| Impact of underlying legal accuracy | Claimed that legal arguments were otherwise warranted by existing law. | Disagreed, stressing that all content must be properly sourced. | Accurate law doesn’t excuse fabricated citations or lessen need for sanction. |
| Mitigating personal circumstances | Noted health issues, remedial education, and clean disciplinary record. | Not primary factors in determining Rule 11 violations. | Court considered for severity but not as excuse for conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in federal court)
- Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (objective standard of reasonableness under Rule 11)
- Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2016) (objective test for Rule 11 compliance)
- Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Medical & Benefits Plan, 959 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1992) (cited but quotation found to be inaccurate)