Jesse Hsien Chueh Yao v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees

What did the court warn about?

The June 13, 2025 order struck both oppositions, required Yao in any future filing to cite only cases he "has read in their entirety" and believes support his conclusions, and warned that "[f]ailure to file legitimate responses citing to real cases that support the propositions for which they are cited will result in the imposition of sanctions in this case," and cautioned that failing to comply with his duty of candor "will result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his claims with prejudice." Yao's renewed opposition carried a footnote certifying that no fictitious citations were included, but Lakeland Regional found a citation that, the court agreed on March 17, 2026 (ECF No. 33), "as cited, does not exist." The court nonetheless denied Lakeland Regional's motion for sanctions because it did not show compliance with the mandatory safe harbor of Rule 11(c)(2). It granted all three motions to dismiss, dismissing some counts with prejudice and others without, and allowed repleading of only the counts dismissed without prejudice.

Why does Jesse Hsien Chueh Yao v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees matter for law firms using AI?

Yao v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees involves two orders addressing the same pro se plaintiff’s citations. In June 2025, after a defendant flagged nonexistent cases in the plaintiff’s opposition, the plaintiff obtained leave to file a corrected opposition that he described as revising citation formatting and updating case references. The court found that the replacement citations were real cases that, with one exception, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and it held that this was a second breach of the duty of candor, made after the plaintiff was on notice of the problem.

The court struck both oppositions, required the plaintiff to cite only cases he had read in full and believed supported his conclusions, and warned that further illegitimate citations would result in sanctions. It also rejected his argument that lacking access to paid research databases excused the errors. When the plaintiff’s renewed opposition included a citation that did not exist as cited, the defendant moved for sanctions. In March 2026, the court agreed about the citation but denied the motion because the defendant had not shown compliance with Rule 11’s 21-day safe harbor.

Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, a certification footnote stating that all authorities had been verified did not prevent a further nonexistent citation, and that the sanctions motion that followed failed on procedure rather than on the merits of the citation problem.