Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Paredes Guevara v. A&P Rest. Corp., No. 24-cv-00522 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025)
- Decided
- November 18, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel in an FMLA and NYLL retaliation action submitted an opposition brief containing nonexistent caselaw, including Kennedy v. Cmty. Action Servs., 107 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Ind. 2000) and Marrero v. Camden Steel Co., 850 F. Supp. 188 (D.N.J. 1994), along with a misrepresentation of Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2001), which the brief cited for an FMLA proposition despite the case involving FLSA and breach of contract claims. Counsel also attributed a fictitious quote to Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014) and quoted nonexistent text from NYLL Section 215. Judge Nelson S. Roman granted dismissal with prejudice and, on the sanctions issue raised in defendants' reply, declined to impose monetary sanctions but formally forewarned counsel that the conduct was sanctionable.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction imposed. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, and forewarned plaintiff's counsel that continued reliance on fabricated authority would draw appropriate action in future proceedings. The court invoked Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim as the governing Rule 11 framework.
Why does Paredes Guevara v. A&P Restaurant Corp. matter for law firms using AI?
Guevara illustrates the rising-but-not-yet-punitive posture some federal judges are taking toward fabricated citations in 2025: the misconduct is documented on the record, the Rule 11 framework is laid out, and counsel is put on formal notice, but the court withholds monetary sanctions on a first occurrence. For firm administrators tracking malpractice exposure, the operative artifact is the published forewarning itself, which becomes evidence of notice if the same attorney repeats the conduct. The opinion also models how opposing counsel can surface AI hallucinations through a reply brief rather than a standalone Rule 11 motion.
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.