Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · D.N.J. · New Jersey bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiffs in a patent case repeatedly cited cases the Court could not locate or that did not support the cited propositions, across this and two related dockets, despite prior warnings.
Consequence
Filing precondition: any future amended pleading must include PDF copies of each cited case with supporting text highlighted; non-compliance grounds for show-cause and sanctions. No monetary sanction.
Lesson
Structural filing preconditions (PDF + highlighted text) are an emerging Rule-11 remedy for repeat AI-citation conduct, operating without the procedural overhead of a Rule 11 motion or safe harbor.
Verified May 10, 2026
- Citation
- Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC, No. 1:24-cv-08882-ESK-AMD, Op. & Order (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2026), ECF Nos. 30, 31 (Kiel, J.)
- Decided
- March 26, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiffs Baker filed a patent-infringement action against Rastelli Foods LLC and related defendants in D.N.J., with several state-law claims. Across this and related dockets (Case Nos. 23-03126, 23-02967), the same plaintiffs repeatedly cited cases the Court could not locate or that did not support the propositions for which they were offered. The Rastelli Defendants moved to dismiss and additionally requested that the Court order plaintiffs not to use AI to prepare filings, or alternatively require AI-use affidavits with future filings. The Court noted that '[s]omewhat surprisingly, Rastelli Defendants do not appear to have reviewed the cases cited in the complaint. The Court has. Multiple cases cited by plaintiffs are so inaccurately cited that the Court is unable to locate them.' Plaintiffs had previously been ordered (in Case No. 23-03126 and others) to provide PDF copies of cited cases after similar citation-verification failures; they responded then with 'inadvertent placeholder references' language and invoked Rule 11's safe-harbor provision.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- None monetary (warning + filing precondition: any future amended pleading or similar action in this Court must include PDF copies of each cited case with the supporting text highlighted; non-compliance is grounds for show-cause and sanctions)
What sanction did the court impose?
Judge Edward S. Kiel granted the motion to dismiss on the federal patent claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. On the AI / Rule 11 conduct, the Court declined to impose monetary sanctions in this order but imposed a structural filing precondition: if plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, or file any other action in this Court asserting similar claims, they must (a) provide PDF copies of each case cited both in the new or amended pleading and the original complaint, (b) highlight in each PDF the text supporting the asserted proposition, and (c) show cause for any case they cannot produce in this format. The Court cited Mullins v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Spirit, No. 25-01366, 2025 WL 3496167, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025) as parallel authority for striking a pro se reply brief and requiring AI-use certifications, and Skoorka v. Kean Univ., No. 16-03842, 2017 WL 6539449, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017) for the proposition that 'Pro se litigants are not shielded from the sanctions offered by Rule 11.' The Court noted that 'Plaintiffs have disregarded my warnings. The Court will not waste its resources ordering plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be sanctioned in a case that may well end with this opinion.'
Why does Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC matter for law firms using AI?
The filing-precondition remedy is the doctrinally novel part of this order. Rather than impose monetary sanctions or strike specific filings, Judge Kiel constructed a forward-looking requirement: every cited case in any future filing must be produced as a PDF with the supporting text highlighted. The remedy is anchored in Rule 11 but operates without the procedural overhead of a Rule 11 motion (no separate motion required, no 21-day safe harbor). It also has a self-enforcing quality: a pro se plaintiff who cannot satisfy the precondition simply cannot file, which sidesteps the need for the Court to monitor compliance on a per-citation basis.
The Court’s chiding of the defense is worth noting for partners filing AI-citation sanctions motions. Kiel observed that ‘Rastelli Defendants do not appear to have reviewed the cases cited in the complaint. The Court has.’ Defense counsel pursuing similar sanctions should pre-verify the offending citations to avoid having the Court do the work, and to avoid the loss of credibility that comes with asking the Court to take action without the underlying diligence on the movant’s side.
The cross-circuit anchoring is also significant. Kiel cited Mullins v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Spirit (W.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025) as parallel authority for the AI-certification remedy. This is the cross-district borrowing pattern that has been emerging in 2025 to 2026 federal practice: judges in one district citing structural-remedy templates from other districts to construct their own AI-conduct responses. For firms tracking judicial AI policy, the pattern suggests that the operative case law is now a mesh of cross-cited orders rather than a circuit-specific common law.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Recognize the structural sanction Kiel applied: a filing precondition requiring PDF-plus-highlighting of every cited case for any future filing. This is a Rule-11-anchored remedy that operates without the procedural overhead of a separate sanctions motion or the 21-day safe harbor.
- Track the cross-circuit citation pattern: Kiel anchored to Mullins v. Duquesne Univ. (W.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2025) for parallel AI-certification authority, suggesting cross-district borrowing of structural-remedy templates is the emerging pattern in 2026 federal practice.
- Document the Skoorka v. Kean Univ. (D.N.J. 2017) cite as the local authority for Rule 11 application to pro se litigants in D.N.J., now anchored by this 2026 application to AI conduct.
- Note Kiel's framing on the defendant's homework problem: the Court chided Rastelli Defendants for not having reviewed the cited cases themselves before moving for sanctions. Defense counsel pursuing AI-citation sanctions should pre-verify the offending citations to avoid the same admonishment.