Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2:25-cv-00689
| D. Ariz. | Aug 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Argelia Esther Mavy, represented by attorney Maren Bam, challenged a Social Security Administration decision.
- Plaintiff’s counsel filed an Opening Brief in May 2025 containing numerous deficient, inaccurate, or fabricated legal citations—many consistent with artificial intelligence (AI) generated hallucinations.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff’s counsel to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for these citation-related deficiencies under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
- Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged responsibility but attributed the issues to reliance on a contracted brief writer and inadequate review processes within her firm.
- Counsel did not admit to direct AI use but conceded that errors were "likely" AI-generated and outlined new procedures to prevent recurrence.
- The Court reviewed the response, analyzed the citations, and ultimately imposed multiple sanctions on Plaintiff’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 violation (false citations) | Counsel relied on subordinates, did not intend to mislead | Not substantially raised | Counsel violated Rule 11 by failing to personally verify citations and submitting false authority |
| Delegation of duty under Rule 11 | Unintentional, relied on firm’s review process | Not raised | Rule 11 obligations are non-delegable; signing attorney must make personal inquiry |
| Sanctions for filing with false authority | No sanctions; responsible, amended procedures now in place | Not raised | Sanctions imposed: pro hac vice revoked, brief stricken, reporting duties, and notification orders |
| Leave to file amended brief | Should be permitted to file amended brief | Not raised | Request denied; amended brief would not remediate prior misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns. Enters., 498 U.S. 533 (objective standard and reasonableness requirement under Rule 11)
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Ent. Grp., 493 U.S. 120 (Rule 11 duty is personal and non-delegable)
- Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (submission of non-existent authority violates Rule 11)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (court’s inherent authority to sanction bad faith conduct)
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102 (stringent standard for imposing sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions)
- Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156 (broad discretion in fashioning Rule 11 sanctions)
- Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531 (guidance on Rule 11 sanctions and discretion)