Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 2:25-cv-00689

Plaintiff Argelia Esther Mavy appealed the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to the District of Arizona.
Plaintiff alleged errors in the Social Security Administration’s evaluation of her claim; her attorney, Ms. Bam, was admitted pro hac vice.
Plaintiff submitted her Opening Brief, citing several cases in support of remand.
The Court discovered multiple citation-related deficiencies, including non-existent cases, misquoted materials, and unrelated case law.
The Court suspects that Plaintiff’s counsel may have used AI tools to generate inauthentic citations and failed to verify them appropriately.
The Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why sanctions should not issue for violations of Rule 11.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of Deficient/Non-Existent Citations	Plaintiff relies on cited authority for relief	Defendant challenges authenticity and relevance	Court orders show cause on sanctions; delays merits
Compliance with Rule 11	Implicitly asserts citations are valid	Asserts Rule 11 violation due to false citations	Pending—Plaintiff's counsel must show cause
Appropriateness of Pro Hac Vice Status	Pro hac vice admission requested and granted	Argues privilege is subject to compliance	Admission may be revoked if rules are not followed
Whether to Consider Merits of the Appeal	Merits should be reached	Briefing tainted by flawed citations	Court will not address merits until citation issue resolved

Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) (attorney's Rule 11 duties include reading and confirming cited authorities)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (discusses Rule 11's requirement that arguments are legally tenable)