Garibay-Robledo v. Noem

What sanction did the court impose?

In a Sanctions Order entered January 8, 2026 (ECF No. 19), the court found that Bray "failed to make a reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11" and "by his own admission" falsely certified in his reply brief that he had "independently cross-checked and verified the accuracy of all legal authorities, citations, facts, and arguments," held that "[s]anctions are therefore appropriate," and ordered him to attend at least four hours of CLE on legal ethics and submit proof of attendance by March 9, 2026. In the January 9, 2026 order (ECF No. 22), the court denied the corrected petition on the merits and, because it "simply restates the previous claim without any supporting citation," again reminded Bray of his Rule 11 obligations.

Why does Garibay-Robledo v. Noem matter for law firms using AI?

Garibay-Robledo is notable for where the false authority came from: counsel told the court the non-existent Fifth Circuit case “was obtained from a Facebook comment.” Neither order mentions AI. The sanction rested on two findings: counsel “failed to make a reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11,” and his reply brief’s statement that he had “independently cross-checked and verified the accuracy of all legal authorities” was false “by his own admission.” Firms that use verification certifications in their filings may wish to note that a false certification was one of the two grounds for the sanction, and that a corrected filing which “simply restates the previous claim without any supporting citation” drew a further Rule 11 reminder.