G.P. v. Arevalo
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · W.D. Wash. · Washington bar guidance
Conduct
Plaintiff's late opposition to a motion to compel arbitration cited a nonexistent case and other erroneous authority that the defendant said, without dispute, was likely AI fabrication.
Consequence
Here the court compelled arbitration and stayed the case, and in a footnote declined to order sanctions at this time while noting ample authority to do so.
Lesson
Here apparently fabricated citations and missed deadlines together drew a footnote rebuke, with sanctions deferred because of the case's posture.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- G.P. v. Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE, Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Case (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2026) (Evanson, J.), ECF No. 124
- Decided
- September 8, 2026
Summary
G.P., proceeding under a pseudonym, sued Jose Hernandez Arevalo (who she alleges disclosed the car's dashboard camera inadequately before her trip), Turo, Inc., three social media companies, two media outlets and the rental vehicle's owner after dashboard video of her texting while driving the rental car off the road was posted online and spread. Turo moved to compel arbitration under its terms of service. G.P. missed the deadline to respond, filed her opposition late, and moved at the same time to extend the lapsed deadline. According to the order, her response "contains erroneous citations that Turo contends--and G.P. does not dispute--are likely the result of AI fabrication," and her later filing acknowledged citing a nonexistent case, "Kader v. S. Fla. Maint., Inc., No. 22-cv-23224, 2023 WL 3578798 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2023)," replacing it with a California Court of Appeal decision. Her counsel had also missed other deadlines, including one he attributed to relocating to Italy and an interruption in internet service at his apartment there. The order does not name G.P.'s counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order notes erroneous citations that Turo "contends--and G.P. does not dispute--are likely the result of AI fabrication"; no tool named)
What did the court warn about?
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson held that G.P.'s opposition to Turo's motion was not properly before the court because she missed the deadline without showing excusable neglect, but reached the merits anyway. The court found G.P. agreed to arbitrate when she created her Turo account and booked the car, that the agreement covered her claims against Turo and Arevalo, and that no statute she invoked barred arbitration. It granted Turo's motion to compel arbitration and Arevalo's alternative motion, denied Turo's motion to strike as moot, and stayed the entire case pending arbitration. On the citations, a footnote states: "Counsel's citation to apparently fabricated authorities and repeated and unexcused missing of deadlines falls well below the standard of professional responsibility required by this Court. Given the procedural posture of this case, the Court will not at this time order sanctions, although there is ample authority on which to do so." It cited a W.D. Wash. decision listing the range of sanctions available for fabricated citations.
Why does G.P. v. Arevalo matter for law firms using AI?
G.P. v. Arevalo is a merits ruling on arbitration that notes the citation problem in its background section and addresses it in a footnote, and the footnote is direct. Judge Evanson wrote that “Counsel’s citation to apparently fabricated authorities and repeated and unexcused missing of deadlines falls well below the standard of professional responsibility required by this Court,” and that sanctions were withheld “[g]iven the procedural posture of this case,” with the case stayed pending arbitration.
The record of the AI question is thin and comes from the parties. The order records that Turo contends, and G.P. does not dispute, that the citations “are likely the result of AI fabrication,” and her later filing acknowledged the nonexistent “Kader” case and substituted a California Court of Appeal decision. The court did not make its own finding that AI was used.
The court’s cited authority, Ledoux v. Outliers, lists the sanctions available for fabricated citations, from monetary sanctions and striking the filing to client notification, notification of judges falsely named as authors, and disciplinary referral. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that the words “at this time” leave the question open if the case returns from arbitration.
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.
- Verify citations in any late or rushed filing before submission. Here the fabricated citation appeared in an opposition that was already untimely.
- Document the basis for any extension request before a deadline passes; the court found no excusable neglect for a request made after the deadline.
- Consider that a court may defer rather than decline sanctions; this order says it will not order sanctions 'at this time' while the case is stayed for arbitration.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is not a court finding: the order records only that Turo contends, and G.P. does not dispute, that the erroneous citations are likely the result of AI fabrication; no tool is named.
- G.P.'s counsel is not named in the order. The Charlotin (Westlaw) copy lists counsel for plaintiff in an editorial attorney block, which is not part of the court's order and is not relied on here.