Labonte v. BOKF, N.A.
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · D. Colo. · Colorado bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff filed three briefs with fabricated quotations and a Sixth Circuit case miscited as Colorado law.
Consequence
Dismissal on merits; court declined disciplinary sanctions but condemned the citation conduct on the record.
Lesson
On-the-record condemnation without formal sanctions is itself a credibility tax that travels with the litigant.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Labonte v. BOKF, N.A., No. 1:25-cv-02947-MDB (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2026)
- Decided
- February 10, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Joshua Warren Labonte filed an amended complaint and three briefs opposing motions to dismiss in a foreclosure-related action against BOKF, N.A., Universal Lending Corporation, MERS, and the Adams County Public Trustee. In a February 10, 2026 order granting the dismissal motions, Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell flagged in a footnote that Labonte's responses contained "multiple inaccuracies that may stem from the improper use of generative artificial intelligence." The court catalogued three illustrative examples: a quotation attributed to Citizen Center v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900 (10th Cir.), that does not appear in the opinion; a citation to "Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp., 2011 WL 13176128" with the wrong reporter information and that does not stand for the proposition cited; and a citation to "Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 P.2d 1188," misattributed to a Colorado court when Sterling is a Sixth Circuit decision at 855 F.2d 1188 with no apparent connection to the proposition asserted.
- AI tool:
- AI (implied; unspecified)
What sanction did the court impose?
The court dismissed all of Labonte's claims, finding the TILA, CCPA, and fraudulent misrepresentation counts time-barred and the quiet-title and injunctive-relief counts unsupported by the allegations. As to the AI conduct, the court "decline[d] to impose any disciplinary sanctions" but "strongly condemn[ed] the submission of inaccurate citations and mischaracterized authority," noting that such errors "undermine the reliability of Plaintiff's filings and diminish Plaintiff's credibility." No monetary fine, show-cause order, or filing restriction issued.
Why does Labonte v. BOKF, N.A. matter for law firms using AI?
Labonte is a useful precedent for the proposition that a federal court can register a finding of generative-AI-related citation misconduct on the docket without entering a sanctions order. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell granted three motions to dismiss in this Colorado foreclosure-removal action and, in a footnote on the first substantive page, listed three categories of citation defects the court traced through the plaintiff’s three response briefs: a fabricated quotation attributed to a real Tenth Circuit case (Citizen Center v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900); a real case (Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp.) cited with the wrong reporter and for a proposition the court could not locate in the opinion; and a real Sixth Circuit decision (Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188) miscited as a Colorado state court ruling at 855 P.2d 1188.
The court’s own framing is instructive: “On careful consideration of the errors and circumstances of this case, including its dismissal as set forth herein, the Court declines to impose any disciplinary sanctions. However, the Court strongly condemns the submission of inaccurate citations and mischaracterized authority. Such errors undermine the reliability of Plaintiff’s filings and diminish Plaintiff’s credibility.”
For a Colorado managing partner reading this alongside the Hanson v. Nest Home Lending recommendation in the same district two months earlier, the contrast is the point: same conduct pattern (pro se, foreclosure-adjacent, hallucinated and miscited authority), different magistrate, different procedural disposition (dismissal on substantive grounds versus a Rule 11 show-cause and recommended striking of filings). Both outcomes are publicly searchable and travel with the litigant. The compliance question for a represented client is whether the firm’s review workflow would have caught a footnote-grade error like reporter-abbreviation drift before the brief was filed.
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.
- Treat a court's footnote condemnation as itself a sanction-adjacent finding for malpractice and admissibility purposes; the docket text is searchable and cited by future opposing counsel.
- Document that the firm's verification workflow checks reporter abbreviations (F.2d versus P.2d) and circuit attribution, the two specific error patterns the court flagged here.
- Note for managing partners considering pro se overlap: this matter is pro se but the order's footnote-only treatment shows how a court can register a credibility finding without invoking Rule 11 procedures.
Sources
Primary sources
- The specific generative AI tool used by the plaintiff, if any, is not identified in the order; the court characterizes the conduct as "may stem from the improper use of generative artificial intelligence" rather than confirming AI use.