Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · N.D. Tex. · Texas bar guidance
Conduct
Plaintiff's summary judgment response cited a purported Fifth Circuit case; counsel admitted it does not exist and was not verified after generative AI was used in drafting.
Consequence
No sanction or warning; the court recorded the admission in a footnote and granted the defendant summary judgment on the merits.
Lesson
Here the case cited for a disputed duty did not exist, and the court could locate no case supporting the proposition before ruling against the plaintiff.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-1484-BT, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Tex. June 23, 2026) (Rutherford, M.J.), ECF No. 51
- Decided
- June 23, 2026
Summary
Rodney Herod sued Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. in a removed negligence action arising from an 18-wheeler rollover, alleging that cargo was negligently loaded, secured, or distributed. Hobby Lobby moved for summary judgment. On duty, Herod contended that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations applied to "cargo owners" such as Hobby Lobby. The court wrote that it "was unable to locate any case supporting Plaintiff's contention regarding the application of the FMCSA to 'cargo owners.'" In footnote 2 it explained that Herod had cited "Cargill Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 825 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016)" for that proposition, and that "at the hearing, counsel admitted that Cargill does not exist and that Plaintiff's counsel failed to verify this citation after utilizing generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of his response," citing a Notice of Errata (ECF No. 45). Herod's summary judgment response, filed two days late, was nonetheless considered in full after the court denied Hobby Lobby's motion to strike it.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (per the order, counsel admitted at the hearing that plaintiff's counsel "failed to verify this citation after utilizing generative artificial intelligence in the drafting of his response")
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court recorded the admission in a footnote and imposed no sanction, show-cause order, or warning
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order following a June 11, 2026 hearing, Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford denied Herod's motion to amend the scheduling order and struck his untimely amended complaint, denied Hobby Lobby's motion to strike Herod's summary judgment response, granted Hobby Lobby's motion for summary judgment, and terminated the remaining motions as moot. On the merits the court held that the FMCSA and its implementing regulations apply to motor carriers and drivers, not to those who merely receive property, and so did not give rise to any legal duty Hobby Lobby owed Herod. The order addresses the nonexistent Cargill citation only in footnote 2 and does not impose a sanction, order counsel to show cause, or otherwise rule on the citation. The order does not name plaintiff's counsel.
Why does Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Herod is a merits decision in which the AI issue appears only in a footnote. The plaintiff’s theory of duty depended on reading the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and its regulations to reach “cargo owners” such as Hobby Lobby. The court said it “was unable to locate any case supporting Plaintiff’s contention,” and footnote 2 records counsel’s admission that the case the plaintiff cited for it, “Cargill Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 825 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016),” does not exist. According to the footnote, counsel admitted at the June 11, 2026 hearing that Cargill does not exist and that plaintiff’s counsel had not verified the citation after using generative artificial intelligence to draft the response.
The order goes no further on the point. It does not order counsel to show cause, impose a sanction, or admonish counsel, and it does not name the attorney. The court resolved the duty question on the statute’s text instead, holding that the FMCSA applies by its plain language only to motor carriers and drivers, and then held that the undisputed evidence showed Hobby Lobby exercised no control over the foreign vendor that loaded the cargo or over VSS, so it could not be vicariously liable for their alleged negligence.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the nonexistent citation did not draw a sanction but was recorded in the court’s summary judgment order, alongside a notice of errata on the docket, in a ruling that went against the client on the very issue the citation was offered to support.
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 the authority behind a load-bearing legal premise. Here the nonexistent Cargill citation was offered for applying the FMCSA to cargo owners, and the court could locate no case supporting that position.
- Document how errata are handled. The order cites a Notice of Errata (ECF No. 45) alongside counsel's admission at the hearing.
- Consider that a court may record an AI-related admission in its merits ruling even when it imposes no sanction. The admission appears in footnote 2 of the court's summary judgment order.
Sources
Primary sources
- The Notice of Errata (ECF No. 45) cited in footnote 2 was not read; the admission is recorded as the order describes it.