Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · S.D. Ohio · Ohio bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff filed motions for default judgment and Rule 11 sanctions citing AI-generated hallucinated caselaw.
Consequence
Motions denied; filing moratorium imposed; warning that future AI hallucinated citations would trigger sanctions.
Lesson
Pro se Rule 11 motions backfire when the movant's own filings contain fabricated citations; courts will issue prophylactic moratoria.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Prot., No. 2:25-cv-01237, ECF No. 38 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2026) (Sargus, J.)
- Decided
- February 18, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Mardis filed motions for default judgment and for Rule 11 sanctions against defendants Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc. and Richard Benevento in S.D. Ohio, No. 2:25-cv-01237. Defendants alerted the court that plaintiff's filings cited cases that did not exist and appeared to have been generated by AI. On February 18, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. denied plaintiff's default judgment motions and Rule 11 motion. The order warned that "if he continues to cite AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw, he could face Court-ordered sanctions" and imposed a filing moratorium directing plaintiff to cease filing documents in the case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss, with leave for the court to strike any new filings.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified generative AI (court found the citations to be 'AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw' without naming a specific product)
What sanction did the court impose?
Default judgment motions and Rule 11 motion denied. Filing moratorium imposed against pro se plaintiff. Express warning that further AI hallucinated citations would trigger sanctions. No monetary sanction entered.
Why does Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection matter for law firms using AI?
Mardis is the cleanest S.D. Ohio example of a pro se Rule 11 motion failing because the movant’s own brief contained AI-hallucinated citations. The defendants flagged the fabrications; Judge Sargus addressed them in the ordinary course of resolving the dispositive motions rather than spinning up a separate Rule 11 process. The remedy was a filing moratorium, not a monetary sanction, and the express warning that continued AI fabrications would trigger sanctions next time.
For Ohio firms representing defendants against pro se filers, Mardis is a procedural template. Surface the hallucinations cleanly in the response brief; the court will fold the finding into the order resolving the underlying motions. The filing moratorium is a useful interim remedy that keeps the docket from accumulating further fabricated filings while the dispositive motions are pending. Note that Mardis denied sanctions even after finding the citations were AI-fabricated, the court explicitly used the order as a warning rather than a sanction.
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.
- Defending against pro se plaintiffs with AI-fabricated filings: surface the hallucinations in responsive briefing rather than waiting for a separate Rule 11 motion; courts will incorporate the finding into routine dispositive orders.
- Filing moratoria against pro se plaintiffs are an emerging S.D. Ohio remedy short of formal sanctions; flag the moratorium when it appears to keep adverse filings out of the record.
- When a pro se filer moves for Rule 11 sanctions, the court will scrutinize the movant's own briefing; AI-fabricated authorities in a sanctions motion are likely to be the cause of denial.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- The exact list of fabricated citations in plaintiff's filings has not been read against the underlying briefs; the court order describes the citations generally as AI-generated and hallucinated.
- The specific AI tool used by plaintiff is not identified on the order's visible portions.