Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc.
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division · M.D. Ga. · Georgia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se consumer-credit plaintiff cited 'multiple cases that appear to be fake' in six motions filed in tight succession, after prior Rule 11 warning from Judge Treadwell in an earlier dismissed action.
Consequence
Non-dispositive motions denied (except extension to respond); Rule 11 warning reserves attorney's fees, court penalty, or dismissal for future violations; Plaintiff barred from further motions pending MTD ruling.
Lesson
Three-part Rule 11 warning template (conduct + rule text + remedy menu) is the most fully-articulated 2025 model; pair with prior-case Rule 11 history when the litigant is a repeat filer.
Verified May 10, 2026
- Citation
- Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00388-CAR, Order on Non-Dispositive Motions (M.D. Ga. Apr. 8, 2025) (Royal, S.J.), ECF No. 19
- Decided
- April 8, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff William Haywood Gordon brought a consumer-credit action against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc. in M.D. Ga. (Macon Division) relating to repossession of his 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe. Defendant moved to dismiss. Plaintiff filed six motions (one a 'Combined Motion'), four of them within a single week, including motions for a more definite statement, to compel specificity, to extend time, to set aside a prior judgment from Plaintiff's earlier lawsuit (5:22-cv-458-MTT before Judge Marc T. Treadwell), to take judicial notice, for leave to issue Rule 45 subpoenas, to stay, to amend, and to strike Defendant's filings. Senior District Judge C. Ashley Royal identified multiple cited cases that appeared to be fake, characterizing the pattern as 'frivolous, meritless motions that waste the Court's and the parties' time and resources.' Judge Treadwell had already reminded Plaintiff of his Rule 11 obligations in dismissing the earlier 2022 action.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- None (Rule 11 warning; sanctions reserved for any future failure to comply with Rule 11 obligations, with the Court noting Plaintiff 'may incur a substantial penalty' including attorney's-fees award, monetary penalty to the Court, or dismissal of the lawsuit)
What sanction did the court impose?
On April 8, 2025, Judge Royal issued an Order on Non-Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 19) denying or denying-in-part each of Plaintiff's six motions (granting only the extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss). On the AI conduct, the Court warned: 'it appears Plaintiff may be using artificial intelligence (AI) in researching and drafting his motions because he cites multiple cases that appear to be fake. While there is no general prohibition on using AI during the course of litigation, Plaintiff has a duty to ensure he is not citing to fake opinions in his filings.' The Court reserved monetary sanctions: 'The Court warns Plaintiff that he may incur a substantial penalty if he fails to comply with Rule 11 and submits filings without first conducting an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances to ensure they have merit. ... Failure to abide by Rule 11 may result in this Court ordering Plaintiff to pay Defendant Wells Fargo's attorney's fees, ordering Plaintiff to pay a penalty to the Court, or dismissing this lawsuit.' The Court also directed Plaintiff (1) not to file any further motions until the pending motion to dismiss is ruled on, and (2) to voluntarily withdraw his meritless claims. The Court cited Thomas v. Pangburn, No. CV423-046, 2023 WL 9425765, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2023) (quoting Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)) and O'Brien v. Flick, No. 24-61529-CIV-DAMIAN, 2025 WL 242924, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025) (collecting cases) as authority that sanctions against parties who submit fake citations are 'not uncommon.'
Why does Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
The Gordon order is the cleanest 2025 articulation of the three-part Rule 11 warning template. Judge Royal identifies the conduct (“multiple cases that appear to be fake”), recites Rule 11(b)(1)(2)(3) in full, and lays out the menu of available remedies for repeat violation (defendant’s attorney’s fees, monetary penalty to the Court, or dismissal of the lawsuit). The format is exportable and has been imitated, in less complete form, in the 2026 W.D. Wash. cluster (Cartwright and Settle), the D.N.J. footnote-warning cases (O’Hearn in Fantini and Doe v. United States), and Bankr. D. Colo. (Romero in CHP 1010 McDowell v. Turpen). For partners drafting AI-citation sanctions briefs, Gordon is the most useful single citation for the structural warning posture.
The prior-case Rule 11 history is doctrinally interesting. Plaintiff had been reminded of Rule 11 by Judge Treadwell in a 2023 order dismissing his earlier action against Wells Fargo (5:22-cv-458-MTT). The 2025 Royal warning thus operates as a second-occurrence reminder, even though it is the first Royal-chambers reminder. The doctrinal significance: a Rule 11 warning is not chambers-bound, so a first-occurrence-in-this-chambers ruling can still be a second-occurrence-overall under the Rule 11 reasonable-inquiry standard. Defense counsel screening pro se filers for AI conduct should pull prior-case dockets to identify Rule 11 history that anchors the warning in a documented pattern.
The no-prohibition-on-AI framing in this April 2025 order anticipates the 2026 W.D. Wash. articulations almost word-for-word (‘there is no general prohibition on using AI’ / ‘no formal rule against the use of generative artificial intelligence’). The pattern across the corpus suggests that judges are converging on a Rule-11-anchored, AI-rule-neutral framing for hallucinated-citation conduct: AI use is not itself sanctionable, but failure to verify citations is. The cross-circuit consistency of this framing in 2025-2026 is now strong enough that it should be the default expectation in pro se AI-citation matters absent a chambers-specific or local-rule AI standing order.
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 the structural three-part Rule 11 warning template Judge Royal applied: (1) identification of the specific conduct (fake citations from likely AI use), (2) recitation of the Rule 11(b)(1)(2)(3) text in full, and (3) explicit menu of forfeitable remedies (attorney's fees, court penalty, lawsuit dismissal) reserved for repeat conduct. This is the most fully-articulated structural warning template in the 2025 corpus.
- Track the prior-judge predicate: Judge Treadwell had already reminded Plaintiff of Rule 11 in a 2023 order dismissing Plaintiff's prior lawsuit on the same underlying facts (Gordon v. Wells Fargo, No. 5:22-cv-458-MTT, 2023 WL 5487665, at *9). Defense counsel pursuing AI-citation sanctions against repeat pro se filers should pull prior-case Rule 11 history; it sharpens both the warning and any later sanctions motion.
- Note the no-prohibition-on-AI framing: 'there is no general prohibition on using AI during the course of litigation' but 'Plaintiff has a duty to ensure he is not citing to fake opinions.' This is the same Rule-11-without-AI-specific-rule posture later articulated by Judges Cartwright (W.D. Wash.) and Settle (W.D. Wash.) in early 2026.
- Recognize the cross-procedural pattern: the AI-citation Rule 11 warning was issued in a non-dispositive motion order, not the Rule 12(b)(6) ruling. Defense counsel should expect (and seek) AI-citation rulings to surface at the procedural-motion stage where the pro se litigant's pattern is most visible.