Garcia v. City of Monte Vista

What sanction did the court impose?

Counsel's declaration (ECF No. 106), as the September 29, 2026 order recounts it, stated that he used generative AI "primarily to help identify potentially relevant cases," that the misquotation arose because "language originating from [his] own notes and summaries ultimately appeared in the [M]otion as though it were a quotation from a case," and that the error was "preventable" because he filed without "proofreading or citation review." Senior District Judge William J. Martínez stated that the court "has no way of knowing" whether the quotation came from counsel's drafting or from AI but accepted his account, and held that attributing a nonexistent quotation to an existing case violates Rule 11(b). The court was "unpersuaded" that counsel intended to deceive but found that he "displayed a reckless disregard" for the obligation to verify filings. Citing the single erroneous citation, counsel's acceptance of responsibility, his candor with his clients and his commitment to review, it found monetary sanctions "too harsh." It made the show-cause order absolute and, "[a]s a nonmonetary sanction," required every future filing by the firm and/or Krenning to carry an AI Certification signed by all who drafted it, and expressly warned that future infractions may bring harsher sanctions, including monetary sanctions (ECF No. 126). The May 29 order denied the motion on the merits.

Why does Garcia v. City of Monte Vista matter for law firms using AI?

In a 56-page order resolving four motions to dismiss, the court paused on a single quotation, stated that it “identified no such quote” in Miller v. Spiers, observed that the case turned on a different element (favorable termination), and flagged in a footnote its suspicion that the quotation was “a product of the un-verified work of generative artificial intelligence.” The same day it entered a separate text-only order to show cause directed at both the Law Office of Troy D. Krenning, LLC and Krenning individually. Beyond whether generative AI was used and whether its output was verified, that order asked whether the clients “were advised and approved of their counsel’s use of AI prior to the filing of the Motion.”

Counsel’s sworn response, as the sanctions order describes it, was that he used AI to find cases, kept a working document mixing excerpts with his own notes, and that his own paraphrase ended up in the motion as a quotation; he filed without a final citation review. The court did not resolve whether AI or counsel’s notes produced the language and accepted his account. It held the violation lay in the failure to verify, whatever the source, and chose a forward-looking sanction: AI-use certifications, signed by every drafter, on all future filings by the attorney and the firm, with an express warning that further infractions may bring monetary sanctions.

Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court found the Rule 11 violation without resolving whether AI produced the quotation, then shaped the sanction around its “continuing concerns about counsel’s future reliance on AI,” and that a single unverified quotation led to a certification requirement for all future filings by the attorney and the firm.