June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts →

FTC v. Noland

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona · D. Ariz. · Arizona bar guidance

Pro-se party

Conduct

Pro se defendants in long-running FTC enforcement filed Rule 60(b) motion and emergency stay with fabricated case citations.

Consequence

Motions denied on merits. Rule 11 warning issued; no formal sanction. Defendants filed errata acknowledging citation errors.

Lesson

Pro se status does not excuse fabricated citations. AI-citation errors surface on post-judgment motions, not just opening briefs.

Other

Verified May 7, 2026

Citation
FTC v. Noland, No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2026) (Lanza, J.)
Decided
March 31, 2026

Summary

In a long-running FTC enforcement action against James D. Noland Jr. and related individual defendants (originally filed January 2020 over a pyramid-scheme allegation), the four Individual Defendants, all proceeding pro se, submitted a series of post-judgment filings, including a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and an emergency stay request, that the court found "appear to contain hallucinated or otherwise inaccurate case citations." After the FTC pointed out the defective citations in its March 27, 2026 response, the defendants filed two notices of errata (Docs. 629 and 632) acknowledging the citation errors. District Judge Dominic W. Lanza addressed the AI conduct in his March 31, 2026 order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and emergency stay on the merits.

AI tool:
Generative AI suspected, specific tool not named in the order
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

Rule 60(b) motion and emergency stay denied. No formal sanction was imposed for the defective citations. The court issued an explicit Rule 11 warning that pro se status does not excuse compliance with citation accuracy and that "filing documents with fictitious cases will subject [defendants] to sanctions under Rule 11," quoting prior Arizona AI sanctions caselaw. The defendants subsequently appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-2171).

Why does FTC v. Noland matter for law firms using AI?

FTC v. Noland is one of two D. Arizona cases handled by Judge Dominic W. Lanza in early 2026 noting suspected AI hallucinations in pro se filings; the other is Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC, decided five weeks earlier on February 26, 2026. The two orders use parallel Rule 11 warning language drawn from Lanza’s earlier ruling in Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust (Oct. 15, 2025). The procedural posture here is unusual for the AI-citation caseload: most reported sanctions cases involve pro se plaintiffs filing complaints or oppositions to dispositive motions, while Noland involved pro se defendants in a federal-agency enforcement action filing post-judgment Rule 60(b) motions and emergency stay requests after a six-year litigation. The court denied both motions on the merits and used the citation defects as the occasion for a Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction; the defendants filed two notices of errata acknowledging the citation errors before the order was entered. Cross-reference: Perry v. Exeter Fin. LLC (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2026); Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2025).

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.

  • Document citation-verification protocols even for routine post-judgment motions; the FTC matter shows that AI errors surface across the full litigation lifecycle, not just opening briefs.
  • When opposing a pro se litigant who appears to be using generative AI, consider citing the fabricated cases by name in the response brief; courts in this district treat that as the usual mechanism for surfacing AI hallucinations to the bench.
  • Train litigation associates that the Rule 11 warning in this order, drawing on the Ghadimi formulation, is now part of the D. Arizona case law that opposing pro se filers will be measured against.

Related on this site

Topic guides

  • Supervised AI Use: ABA Model Rule 5.1, Rule 5.3, and the state opinions that translate them into firm-side duties to supervise AI tools and the people using th…

Sanctions cases

From the blog

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.

Unverified claims:
  • The order references 'hallucinated or otherwise inaccurate case citations' and quotes Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust on the Rule 11 warning, but does not enumerate the specific fabricated case names. Those specifics likely appear in the FTC's March 27, 2026 response (Doc. 630), which was not retrieved for this entry.
  • The PDF filename on the Charlotin tracker reads '31_March_2025' but the order is dated March 31, 2026; the PDF text and CourtListener docket both confirm the 2026 date.