Button v. Jimison (Jan. 20, 2026 order)
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · W.D. Wash. · Washington bar guidance
Conduct
Even after the certification regime was imposed, plaintiffs continued to cite cases the court could not locate.
Consequence
Filings stricken; case dismissed with prejudice on UPEPA grounds; mandatory attorney fees ordered.
Lesson
Per-filing certifications are signed, not verified; courts treat further hallucinated cites as escalation, not first-time conduct.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Button v. Jimison, No. 3:25-cv-05622-DGE (W.D. Wash. Jan. 20, 2026) (Estudillo, J.)
- Decided
- January 20, 2026
Summary
Following the October 17, 2025 order requiring per-filing certifications, pro se plaintiffs Mitchell Taylor Button and Dusty Button continued to file motions and pleadings in the same defamation action. While these later filings included the required certification language, several of them contained additional citations that Judge David G. Estudillo could not locate or that did not contain the language plaintiffs attributed to the cited cases. The court catalogued specific instances: misquoted Ninth Circuit cases on Rule 12(b) and 12(c) procedure, an unlocatable district court case on striking answers, a misquoted Sixth Circuit case, an unlocatable case on serial-litigant treatment, and a district court case that did not exist for the proposition that a notice of unavailability "carries no legal effect."
- AI tool:
- Generative AI inferred from the citation pattern; specific tool not identified on the record
What sanction did the court impose?
Court granted defendant's special motion for expedited relief under Washington's UPEPA anti-SLAPP statute and dismissed the Buttons' complaint with prejudice. Court STRUCK the Buttons' filings (Dkt. Nos. 23 and 27) that included fictitious citations per the October 17 order. Court explicitly cautioned that further filings with fictitious citations may lead to the imposition of sanctions, citing parallel admonishments in Button v. Doherty (S.D.N.Y.) and Button v. Humphries (C.D. Cal.). Defendant Jimison directed to file motion for attorney fees within 21 days under UPEPA's mandatory fee-shifting provision.
Why does Button v. Jimison (Jan. 20, 2026 order) matter for law firms using AI?
The Jan. 20, 2026 Button order completes the Estudillo three-order arc captured in this database (Reed Oct. 14, Button-Oct Oct. 17, Button-Jan Jan. 20) and shows how the chambers’ graduated response works in practice. The October order imposed a forward-looking certification requirement; by January, the plaintiffs had complied with the certification language but the underlying behavior continued. The court’s response was to strike the offending filings, treat the certification as a procedural floor that had been respected only formally, and reach the merits via UPEPA. The dismissal with prejudice and the mandatory fee-shifting under Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute are the substantive consequences; the AI-citation conduct functions as a credibility breakdown that accelerates rather than triggers them.
For firm practice, the Jan. 20 order is the most useful in the cluster because it shows the financial endgame. UPEPA fee-shifting in Washington and similar statutes elsewhere mean that a defendant facing pro se AI-citation conduct does not need a separate sanctions motion to recover fees: the underlying anti-SLAPP win does the work. Firms representing UPEPA defendants in the wake of pro se AI-citation conduct should plan their fee petitions to capture both the merits work and the verification work made necessary by the unlocatable citations, which adds defensible billable hours that would not otherwise have been incurred. Counsel should also note that the court referenced parallel orders in S.D.N.Y. and C.D. Cal. against the same plaintiffs, treating the cross-district pattern as part of the record without formal judicial notice; coordinated defense across jurisdictions matters.
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.
- The Jan. 20 order is the procedural step that follows when an Estudillo certification regime fails to deter the underlying behavior; treat it as the template for what comes next when the certification does not work.
- Anti-SLAPP statutes with mandatory fee-shifting (UPEPA, California's section 425.16) make the financial consequences of AI-citation conduct multidirectional: the moving defendant gets fees regardless of whether the AI conduct itself drew sanctions.
- A litigant who is being warned by multiple federal districts simultaneously (Button v. Doherty, Button v. Humphries, Button v. Jimison) creates a paper trail that subsequent judges will treat as part of the operative record; coordinate any defense across jurisdictions to control the narrative.