Leber v. Bryan Medical Center
U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska · D. Neb. · Nebraska bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited a Nebraska case that did not exist; reporter pin actually pointed to an unrelated Minnesota appellate decision.
Consequence
Motion to reconsider denied on the merits; second written warning issued under Rule 11(b) and NECivR 7.1(d)(5); no sanction yet.
Lesson
D. Neb.'s local rules make a false brief-compliance certificate itself sanctionable, separate from the brief (NECivR 7.1(d)(5) as the order cites it; 7.1(d)(1)(E) since December 1, 2025).
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Leber v. Bryan Med. Ctr., No. 8:25-cv-00401-RFR-RCC, ECF No. 98 (D. Neb. Dec. 23, 2025) (Rossiter, C.J.)
- Decided
- December 23, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Matthew F. Leber filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of his motion for partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In support, Leber cited a case the court found did not exist as cited: "Kelly v. St. Francis Medical Center, 899 N.W.2d 869 (Neb. 2017)." Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. noted that the cited reporter pin "899 N.W.2d 869" actually corresponds to a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision (St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter, later reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court), not a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling. Leber's filing included a written certification that he had "reviewed and verified the accuracy of all content, citations, and legal authority referenced." The court had previously warned Leber about a similar fabrication in an earlier order.
- AI tool:
- Implied (court characterized cited case as 'a hallucination of artificial intelligence')
What did the court warn about?
The motion for reconsideration was denied for the reasons stated in the court's prior order. No monetary sanction was imposed. The court reiterated the warning, instructing Leber "to verify the accuracy of all content, citations, and legal authority in his filings" and citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and NECivR 7.1(d)(5), the District of Nebraska's local rule providing that "any brief not in compliance with this subsection may be stricken without further notice in the sole discretion of the court" and that "a material misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance" may itself "result in sanctions against the person signing the document."
Why does Leber v. Bryan Medical Center matter for law firms using AI?
Chief Judge Rossiter declined to impose sanctions despite identifying both a hallucinated citation and a false verification certificate. Instead, this December 23, 2025 order counts as the second formal warning in the case. The first sat in the order denying Leber’s original Rule 54(b) motion (Filing No. 32). Restraint comes paired with explicit primary-source citation to NECivR 7.1(d)(5), the 2024 numbering of the local-rule provision that gives the court two distinct sanctions hooks: striking briefs that do not comply, and sanctioning the person who signs a brief-compliance certificate containing “a material misrepresentation.” In the rules effective December 1, 2025 those hooks sit at NECivR 7.1(d)(1)(E); the AI certificate that the 2024 certificate of compliance carried was removed, and a verification duty for AI-drafted filings took its place at 7.1(d)(2) (see the tracker entry).
D. Neb. has now put its escalation ladder on the record. A first incident draws a Rule 11(b) warning. A second incident in the same docket draws a stronger warning with explicit local-rule citation. A third would presumably activate the local rule’s sanction provision directly. Firms practicing in D. Neb. who use AI tools should treat any “I have verified all citations” statement as itself a Rule 11 representation, because that is how Chief Judge Rossiter reads it, and should note that since December 1, 2025 the rule itself requires that verification for any AI-drafted filing.
Leber’s filing illustrates the harder fabrication pattern. A Nebraska reporter cite resolved to a Minnesota intermediate appellate court case. The AI generated a plausible Nebraska case name attached to a real reporter citation that resolves elsewhere. The cite itself shepardizes; only reading the cited opinion exposes the defect.
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.
- When practicing in D. Neb., the brief-compliance certificate is a Rule 11 surface in its own right (NECivR 7.1(d)(5) in the 2024 rules; 7.1(d)(1)(E) since December 1, 2025), and 7.1(d)(2) now requires any party that used generative AI to verify the filing; review both before signing.
- The Leber sequence (warning, second order, no sanction) shows that escalation in D. Neb. starts with strict warnings tied to local-rule certificates rather than monetary penalties; document the verification step to be on the right side of the local rule, which since December 1, 2025 requires verification of AI-drafted filings rather than an AI certificate.
- Cross-check 'N.W.2d' citations to confirm the regional reporter actually maps to the cited state's reports; the reporter-jurisdiction mismatch in Leber is a recurring AI-hallucination tell.