Jones v. Reed's, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · N.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Defense counsel's opposition quoted N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-8 as imposing a meet-and-confer duty; the court found the rule says something completely different.
Consequence
Here the court warned that further misstatements of law, whether from AI hallucination or lack of diligence, will likely bring sanctions; none imposed for this one.
Lesson
In this case a second local-rule error, after an earlier admonition, drew an express sanctions warning that named AI hallucination as one possible cause.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Jones v. Reed's, Inc., No. 25-cv-07102-JCS, Order Granting Motion for Costs of Service (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026) (Spero, M.J.), ECF No. 46
- Decided
- April 29, 2026
Summary
Jarhonda Jones brought a putative class action over food labeling against Reed's, Inc. After Reed's did not return a requested waiver of service, Plaintiff served the complaint and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) for the costs of service and the fees of the motion. Reed's opposition argued that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff had not met and conferred first, and it told the court that "Civil Local Rule 7-8 of the Northern District of California provides that '[b]efore filing any motion . . . , the moving party must first contact the opposing party to discuss thoroughly, in person or by telephone, each issue that is in dispute.'" The opposition added that the rule required a certification of compliance. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, presiding with the parties' consent, wrote that "[i]n fact, Rule 7-8 of this Court's Civil Local Rules states something completely different": it sets the form and timing of sanctions motions and contains no meet-and-confer requirement. Earlier in the briefing on the motion, the court had granted Reed's leave to file its opposition late after defense counsel misread Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), and had said that "going forward it expects counsel to be familiar with and abide by this Court's Local Rules." The order does not name the attorney who signed the opposition.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court says the misstatement may be "the result of hallucination by artificial intelligence or lack of diligence" and does not find which; no tool named)
What did the court warn about?
The court held that Plaintiff's counsel was not required to meet and confer and called counsel's misstatement of the law "particularly troubling in light of the Court's previous warning." It then warned: "Whether counsel's misrepresentation is the result of hallucination by artificial intelligence or lack of diligence, further such misstatements of the law will likely result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court." No sanction was imposed for the misstatement. The court rejected each of Reed's other arguments (lack of service on an officer or agent, good cause for the delay, and unreasonable fees), found that Plaintiff had substantially complied with Rule 4(d)(1), and granted the motion, awarding Plaintiff $8,756.95 under Rule 4(d)(2) (the $61.95 cost of service and $8,695 in fees for the motion), payable within 30 days. That award is a Rule 4(d)(2) cost-shifting award for the failure to waive service, not a sanction for the misstated local rule.
Why does Jones v. Reed's, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Jones is a small procedural dispute over the costs of serving a complaint, and the AI reference appears in the court’s handling of one argument. Reed’s opposed Plaintiff’s Rule 4(d)(2) motion on the ground that Plaintiff had not met and conferred first, and it quoted Civil Local Rule 7-8 as requiring that step. Magistrate Judge Spero set out the actual text of Rule 7-8, which governs the form and timing of sanctions motions, and concluded that “Plaintiff’s counsel was not required to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel before filing the Motion.” The meet-and-confer language Reed’s quoted is not in the rule the opposition cited.
The court’s warning built on an earlier one in the same motion. Nineteen days before, in granting Reed’s leave to file its opposition late, the court had pointed out that defense counsel misdescribed Civil Local Rule 7-3(a)‘s opposition deadline and had said it expected counsel to know and follow the Local Rules. When the opposition then misstated Rule 7-8, the court called the error “particularly troubling in light of the Court’s previous warning” and said further misstatements “will likely result in the imposition of sanctions,” whether they come from “hallucination by artificial intelligence or lack of diligence.”
The court did not decide which of those causes applied, and it imposed nothing for the misstatement itself. The only monetary consequence in the order is the $8,756.95 Rule 4(d)(2) award for Reed’s failure to waive service. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court framed its warning around the accuracy of the statement of law, not around whether AI was used.
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 quoted local rules against the court's current rules before filing. Here the opposition attributed meet-and-confer text to Civil L.R. 7-8, which governs the form and timing of sanctions motions.
- Review how prior admonitions in a case are tracked. The court called this misstatement particularly troubling because it had already told counsel to be familiar with the Local Rules.
- Consider that a court may treat AI hallucination and lack of diligence as equally sanctionable. The court's warning applied whichever caused the misstatement.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the court expressly leaves open whether the misstatement came from 'hallucination by artificial intelligence or lack of diligence.' There is no finding that AI was used.
- The order does not name the attorney who drafted or signed the opposition; counsel is not named here.