763 F.Supp.3d 1054
E.D. Cal.2025Background
- Defendant Daragh Finbar Hayes was indicted for sexual exploitation of a minor under federal law.
- Defense counsel, Andrew Francisco, filed a motion to unseal a previously sealed motion, citing legislative history, and included what was later discovered to be a fictitious case citation and quotation ("United States v. Harris, 761 F. Supp. 409, 414 (D.D.C. 1991)").
- The government challenged the authenticity of both the case and quote, prompting further investigation by the Court.
- Francisco, upon being confronted, initially attempted to attribute the quote to another case (United States v. Broussard), but neither case contained the cited language.
- The Court found Francisco had knowingly and repeatedly misrepresented legal authority, failed in his duty of candor, and issued an order to show cause regarding sanctions.
- Monetary sanctions were imposed, and the Court ordered notification to the relevant bar associations and district judges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submission of fictitious legal authority | Francisco cited a non-existent case and knowingly misled the court | Claimed mistake, then attempted to attribute the quote to another case (Broussard) | Found Francisco acted in bad faith and sanctioned him |
| Attorney candor to the court | Misrepresentations degraded court integrity and violated rules | Asserted errors were inadvertent and not substantive | Misrepresentations were knowing and deliberate |
| Adequacy of procedural safeguards before sanction | Francisco was given notice and opportunity to respond | Francisco submitted written explanations/apologies | Court found procedural requirements satisfied |
| Scope and appropriateness of sanctions | Sought proportionate punishment and deterrence | Sought to minimize consequences, claimed future compliance | Imposed $1,500 sanction, notice to bar and judges |
Key Cases Cited
- Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts may discipline members of their bar)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001) (sanctions may be imposed under inherent authority)
- Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) (sanctions must be proportionate to the offense)
- Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (deference to district court's local rules interpretations)
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (submission of fake cases by counsel leads to sanctions)
- Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255 (9th Cir. 2024) (striking filings over fictitious citations)
- Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) (referral to disciplinary committee for fictitious citation)