In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation (Gravelyn Transfer Order)
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (transferee: W.D. Pa.) · J.P.M.L.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, & Mech. Ventilator Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3014, ECF No. 4201 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 6, 2026) (transfer order re Gravelyn v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., N.D. Cal. C.A. No. 3:25-10908)
- Decided
- April 6, 2026
Summary
In a transfer order in MDL No. 3014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rejected the Gravelyn plaintiff's motion to vacate conditional transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Panel (Chair Karen K. Caldwell, with Judges Gorton, Kennelly, Benitez, Kimball, and Cox Arleo) found that the plaintiff's brief cited only two Panel decisions and that both citations were inaccurate and misrepresented the holdings, including a Xarelto reporter citation that pointed to a different MDL and an Eliquis citation that did not stand for the proposition asserted. An earlier replaced brief contained additional defective citations to Bard IVC Filters and Vioxx that resolved to unrelated district court decisions. The Panel found "the nature of the misrepresentations suggests that counsel may have used generative artificial intelligence to draft plaintiff's brief without checking the accuracy of the information produced."
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction. The Panel admonished the plaintiff and his counsel for "fabricating and misrepresenting legal authorities," called it "an abuse of the judicial process," and warned that "any further non-compliant submissions from plaintiff may be stricken or result in additional appropriate corrective action." Transfer to W.D. Pa. (Judge Joy Flowers Conti) was ordered.
Why does In re Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation (Gravelyn Transfer Order) matter for law firms using AI?
This Panel order matters because the J.P.M.L. is a small, expert federal tribunal whose orders read across every MDL in the country, and a public admonition from it for AI-generated fabrications signals that the practice is now drawing scrutiny at the highest procedural levels of the federal system. For a managing partner, the lesson is that the risk extends well beyond merits briefs in trial courts. Even procedural filings, here a routine motion to vacate conditional transfer, get checked, and a brief built on two fabricated authorities is enough to draw a formal admonishment and an explicit warning of escalating sanctions.
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.