Hatch v. College Ave Student Loans
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · N.D. Ill. · Illinois bar guidance
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Hatch v. College Ave Student Loans, No. 25-cv-05710, 2026 WL 636816 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2026)
- Filing date
- March 6, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff's counsel Heather Hersh cited Horan v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 8:20-cv-02187-PWG, 2022 WL 2190906 (D. Md. June 17, 2022) and Jones v. TransUnion, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00489, 2015 WL 7566685 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2015) in an opposition brief and sur-reply opposing Equifax's motion to dismiss FCRA claims. Judge Mary M. Rowland granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and, in the same order, wrote that "the Court is concerned that counsel has misled the Court in citing cases that are nonexistent, or at a minimum, has failed to diligently cite check her submissions."
- AI tool:
- Not mentioned in the order
What is the current procedural posture?
The court ordered Attorney Hersh to show cause on April 9, 2026 why she should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2), 28 U.S.C. section 1927, and the court's inherent power "for citing potentially non-existent cases." Counsel was to provide true and accurate copies of Horan and Jones or, if unable to, submit by April 3, 2026 a sworn declaration "explaining to the Court how the opposition brief and sur-reply were generated and how counsel came to locate Horan and Jones." The order imposes no sanction.
Why does Hatch v. College Ave Student Loans matter for law firms using AI?
Hatch shows how questionable citations can surface in routine motion practice. The court decided Equifax’s motion on the merits and, in the same order, directed plaintiff’s counsel personally to show cause, directing counsel to produce the cited decisions or, if unable to, submit a sworn declaration explaining “how the opposition brief and sur-reply were generated.” The order does not mention AI. For firms, it shows that a court can require an account of how a brief was drafted before deciding whether any sanction is warranted.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order does not mention artificial intelligence; it refers to "potentially non-existent cases" and asks how the briefs "were generated." The entry is included because third-party AI hallucination trackers list it.
- The outcome of the April 9, 2026 show-cause proceeding has not been located in a publicly available court document.