House v. TH Foods, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada · D. Nev. · Nevada bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff, already warned about apparently hallucinated cases, kept attributing quotations to Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court opinions that do not contain them.
Consequence
Here the magistrate judge set a show-cause hearing on whether to recommend dismissal, citing the citation problems alongside discovery obstruction; R&R issued, district judge has not ruled.
Lesson
In this case misattributed quotations after an explicit warning became one ground in a case-terminating sanctions proceeding.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- House v. TH Foods, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01326-JAD-DJA, Order and Order to Show Cause (D. Nev. June 18, 2026) (Albregts, M.J.), ECF No. 322
- Filing date
- June 18, 2026
Summary
Preston House sued his former employer, TH Foods, Inc., for retaliation and has litigated pro se since his counsel withdrew in January 2025. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts's order catalogs eight categories of obstruction, the last being "relying on hallucinated, misquoted, and miscited cases and continuing to misquote and miscite cases after the Court warned him that doing so would result in sanctions." At a November 17, 2025 hearing the court noted that House "appeared to be relying on artificial intelligence to draft his filings," identified two cases that "appeared to be hallucinated" (Scherer v. UTI Worldwide, Inc. and EEOC v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., cited by Westlaw number), quotations attributed to cases that do not contain them, and propositions the cited cases did not appear to support. It gave him "this one pass" and ordered that he not cite hallucinated cases or misattribute quotations, on pain of a sanctions hearing under Local Rule IA 11-8(e). This order finds that later filings again attributed quotations to Henry v. Gill Industries, Zivkovic, Cornwell, Rivera v. NIBCO, Schlagenhauf, and Hallett that those opinions do not contain, and cited Gattegno for a Rule 37(b) proposition it does not discuss. Earlier, the court had repeatedly struck House's unauthorized "rogue" filings.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order recounts that at a November 17, 2025 hearing the court noted the plaintiff 'appeared to be relying on artificial intelligence to draft his filings'; no tool is named)
What is the current procedural posture?
Ruling on TH Foods' motion for case-terminating sanctions, which asked among other things that House's discovery failures and reliance on "hallucinated or misattributed cases" be treated as contempt, the magistrate judge granted the motion in part and denied it in part. He found that House had obstructed discovery and disobeyed court orders, but, "given Plaintiff's pro se status," gave him "one chance to explain" why the case should not be dismissed. House was ordered to appear in person on August 19, 2026 and show cause why the magistrate judge should not recommend dismissal to the assigned district judge and, if not, why other sanctions should not be imposed or recommended. TH Foods' request to impose sanctions without a hearing was denied, and its pending discovery motions were denied without prejudice as premature. The CourtListener docket shows the show-cause hearing was held on August 19, 2026 and a report and recommendation was entered September 4, 2026 (ECF No. 324), to which objections have been filed; its contents were not available and the district judge has not ruled.
Why does House v. TH Foods, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
This order does not impose a sanction; it sets up one. Magistrate Judge Albregts granted the defendant’s case-terminating sanctions motion only to the extent of requiring the pro se plaintiff to appear and show cause why the court should not recommend dismissal. The AI-related conduct is one of eight categories of obstruction the order catalogs, alongside refusal to provide medical-record authorizations, withholding deposition notes, interference with third-party discovery, and repeated “rogue” filings that the court struck.
The citation history follows a familiar path. At a November 2025 hearing the court identified two cases that appeared to be hallucinated, several quotations that the cited cases do not contain, and propositions the cases did not appear to support, and it gave House “this one pass” with an explicit warning. The June 2026 order then checks later filings and finds quotations attributed to six real Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court opinions that do not contain them, plus a Rule 37(b) proposition attributed to a case that does not discuss the rule. The court also applied a liberal construction in one instance, declining to treat a loosely cited Ninth Circuit case as a violation.
The docket shows the show-cause hearing went forward and a report and recommendation followed in September 2026. Until that recommendation and any district-court ruling are read, this entry records the matter as pending.
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 quotations, not only case existence. Most of the problems the court identified after its warning were real opinions cited for quotations they do not contain.
- Document how a court's prior warnings are tracked in a matter. Here the court tied the post-warning citation problems to its earlier order that any violation would lead to a sanctions hearing under Local Rule IA 11-8(e).
- Consider how citation problems compound other misconduct. The court listed them as one of eight categories of obstruction supporting a possible recommendation of dismissal.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the court's statements are hedged ('appeared to be relying on artificial intelligence'; cases that 'appeared to be hallucinated'); there is no finding that AI was used or which tool.
- The September 4, 2026 report and recommendation (ECF No. 324) is not in the RECAP archive and was not read; its recommendation, and the district judge's eventual ruling, are unknown. The entry stays pending until they are read.