Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · S.D. Ohio · Ohio bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited hallucinated caselaw, including a nonexistent case in a motion to compel, while filing repeated default motions against defendants who had timely moved to dismiss.
Consequence
Rule 11 violation found; directed to stop and warned of court-ordered sanctions; motions denied; further filings barred pending the motions to dismiss. Case later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Lesson
Flagging a pro se opponent's hallucinated citations in a response brief can draw a Rule 11 finding and warning, even when a sanctions request fails for skipping the safe harbor.
Verified October 1, 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. Both defendant groups pointed out in their briefing that plaintiff was citing cases that did not exist and were likely generated by AI, including a nonexistent "Johnson v. Mitchell" cited in his motion to compel. On February 18, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. denied the default motions and plaintiff's Rule 11 request because the defendants had timely moved to dismiss and were not in default. The court denied without prejudice the defendants' request for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or Rule 11 sanctions, which did not assert compliance with Rule 11's safe harbor. It found that "[b]y citing to AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw, Plaintiff is violating Rule 11," directed him to stop, and warned that "if this behavior continues, he could face Court-ordered sanctions." Citing its limited resources and plaintiff's successive filings, the court also ordered him to cease filing documents until the pending motions to dismiss were resolved.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified generative AI (court found the citations to be 'AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw' without naming a specific product)
What did the court warn about?
Plaintiff's default motions and Rule 11 request denied; defendants' request for § 1927 fees or Rule 11 sanctions denied without prejudice for want of a safe-harbor assertion. The court found that plaintiff's hallucinated citations violate Rule 11, directed him to stop, and warned that continuing could bring court-ordered sanctions (ECF No. 38 at 4-5, 7). It separately barred further filings from plaintiff until the motions to dismiss were decided (id. at 5-6). No monetary sanction was entered. On August 17, 2026, the court granted the Dealer Loyalty Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed plaintiff's claims against all defendants without prejudice (ECF No. 45).
Why does Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection matter for law firms using AI?
In Mardis, the pro se plaintiff’s own Rule 11 request failed for a reason unrelated to his citations: the defendants had timely moved to dismiss, so there was no default to sanction. The citation problem came in through the defendants’ opposition briefs, which identified hallucinated cases. Judge Sargus denied the defendants’ fee and sanctions request without prejudice because it did not assert compliance with Rule 11’s safe harbor, but still found that citing “AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw” violates Rule 11, directed the plaintiff to stop, and warned of court-ordered sanctions if it continued.
For Ohio firms representing defendants against pro se filers, Mardis shows two separate tools in one order. The warning answered the citations; the bar on further filings answered the volume of successive motions, which the court grounded in its limited resources and its docket-control discretion. The case ended on August 17, 2026, when the court dismissed all claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 45).
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 a pro se opponent cites nonexistent cases, identify them in the response brief: here both defendant groups did, and the court found a Rule 11 violation and warned the plaintiff without a separate motion.
- A fee or sanctions request folded into an opposition brief can fail for want of Rule 11's 21-day safe harbor; firms seeking sanctions may wish to serve a separate motion first.
- Courts may pair a citation warning with docket control: the court barred further filings from the plaintiff until the motions to dismiss were decided, citing its limited resources and his successive filings.
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, if any, is not identified in the order.