Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · N.D. Ohio · Ohio bar guidance
Conduct
Here the transit authority cited a real Ohio case at the wrong reporter page for a proposition the case does not discuss, in an Opposition the court also called partly frivolous.
Consequence
No sanction. The judge said she "strongly suspects that AI was used" and expressly warned GCRTA she would not hesitate to sanction further frivolous arguments and hallucinated citations, AI or not.
Lesson
Here the court warned it would not hesitate to sanction "even if these were merely human errors made without the use of AI": the warning turned on the error, not the tool.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., No. 1:24-cv-01217-PAB, Memorandum Opinion & Order (N.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2026) (Barker, J.), ECF No. 38
- Decided
- August 6, 2026
Summary
Monique Burgess sued her employer, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), under the ADA, Section 504, and Ohio law, and later moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding claims tied to her termination. In its Opposition to the Motion for Leave, GCRTA argued that amendment would be futile under the election-of-remedies doctrine and cited "State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland, 70 Ohio St.3d 40, 43 (1994)" for the proposition that "[i]t is the settled policy of Ohio law that a party may not pursue inconsistent remedies." Judge Pamela A. Barker found two problems. First, Shimola "is not found at '70 Ohio St.3d 40' as cited by GCRTA"; that citation leads to State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio, a workers' compensation case "that has nothing to do with parties pursing inconsistent remedies." Second, Shimola "is a real case" at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, but it "involved the entry of default judgment and there was no discussion of whether the plaintiff was pursuing inconsistent remedies." The court also called a separate GCRTA argument in the same Opposition, about two counts both labeled Count VI, "patently frivolous."
- AI tool:
- Suspected, not found (the court "strongly suspects that AI was used to draft the Opposition" and said the citation "bears the hallmarks of a hallucinated case citation"; no tool named)
What did the court warn about?
No sanction was imposed. In footnote 5 the court wrote: "This citation bears the hallmarks of a hallucinated case citation. Given GCRTA's other frivolous arguments in their Opposition, the Court strongly suspects that AI was used to draft the Opposition." Noting that the judge had previously sanctioned Rule 11 violations related to improper AI use in Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland, the court stated that "GCRTA is expressly warned that the undersigned will not hesitate to do so again in this case if further briefing contains frivolous arguments and hallucinated case citations. This remains true even if these were merely human errors made without the use of AI." On the motions, the court denied GCRTA's Second Motion to Dismiss and granted Burgess's Motion for Leave, deeming the Second Amended Complaint filed, but dismissed Count V of that complaint for failure to state a claim. It ordered GCRTA to answer within seven days, barred further Rule 12 motions on the pleadings, and advised Burgess that no further amendments would be considered absent compelling circumstances.
Why does Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority matter for law firms using AI?
Burgess is an employment case in which the AI discussion arises from one citation in the defendant’s futility argument. Opposing the plaintiff’s motion to amend, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority invoked the election-of-remedies doctrine and cited “State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland, 70 Ohio St.3d 40, 43 (1994).” Judge Barker traced the citation: the reporter page belongs to a workers’ compensation decision, State ex rel. Hopkins, and the real Shimola, reported at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, “involved the entry of default judgment and there was no discussion of whether the plaintiff was pursuing inconsistent remedies.” The court then rejected the doctrine on its own terms, holding that the arbitration and the discrimination claims are not “repugnant to and inconsistent with” each other.
The court’s language on AI is carefully hedged. It said the citation “bears the hallmarks of a hallucinated case citation” and that, given “GCRTA’s other frivolous arguments in their Opposition, the Court strongly suspects that AI was used to draft the Opposition.” It did not find AI use and imposed no sanction. Instead it pointed to the judge’s earlier Rule 11 sanction in Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland and warned that “the undersigned will not hesitate to do so again in this case if further briefing contains frivolous arguments and hallucinated case citations.”
The final sentence of the footnote carries the practical point: “This remains true even if these were merely human errors made without the use of AI.” Here the court framed the risk around what reaches the page, a citation that does not say what it is cited for, rather than around the drafting tool. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that the warning in this case was addressed to the party by name and was delivered in an order that also closed the pleadings and barred further Rule 12 motions.
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.
- Verify that a real case supports the proposition it is cited for, not only that it exists. Here Shimola was a real decision, cited at the wrong page, and "there was no discussion" of the doctrine it was cited for.
- Review reporter volume and page for every cite. The page GCRTA gave led to a different case, a workers' compensation decision.
- Document that a represented institutional party can be the named target of a warning. The court addressed its warning to "GCRTA" and pointed to the judge's prior Rule 11 sanction in another AI case.
- Consider that the court tied its suspicion of AI use partly to the quality of the other arguments in the same filing, not only to the citation.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the court "strongly suspects" AI was used and says the citation "bears the hallmarks" of a hallucination; it does not find that AI was used. The Charlotin tracker's label of the Shimola cite as "Fabricated" overstates the order, which describes a real case cited at the wrong reporter page for a proposition it does not discuss.
- The order does not name the attorney who signed GCRTA's Opposition. Brian R. Gutkowski appeared for GCRTA at an April 7, 2026 status conference, but the order does not tie him to the Opposition, so the entry does not name him.
- Later docket entries (GCRTA's answer and any further briefing) were not reviewed; whether the court took any further action on the warning is unverified.