Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB, 2025 WL 2689350 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025)
- Decided
- September 19, 2025
Summary
Plaintiffs' counsel Laurie Doucet Normandin cited a fictitious case, "Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pitts, 202 F. Supp. 3d 356 (E.D. Mich. 2016)," in opposing Teleflora's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker could find no record of the Pitts decision and issued an order to show cause on September 11, 2025. Counsel responded that the citation resulted from research using "sources that incorporate AI" and that the intended authority was Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 2013 WL 1007666 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013).
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Order to show cause discharged without imposition of sanctions. Counsel was admonished to exercise due care under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) when using AI tools, and the court characterized her conduct as "a discredit to the bar and a disservice to her client" under California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 3.1 and Local Rule 180(e).
Why does Gibralter, LLC v. DMS Flowers, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Gibralter illustrates the now-routine pattern of a single fabricated citation surfacing inside an otherwise ordinary trademark brief. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions, but the published admonishment, with its express invocation of Rule 11(b) and California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3, gives malpractice carriers and managing partners another data point for the proposition that AI-assisted research without verification is now its own discrete category of professional risk.
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.