Merz v. Jenkins
Washington Court of Appeals, Division One · Wash. Ct. App. · Washington bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant's brief attributed a nonexistent quotation to a Washington opinion and cited other authorities for propositions they do not support.
Consequence
No appellate sanction for the citations; dismissal and a trial-court CR 11 award based on frivolous claims and threats affirmed; a footnote states such citations violate RAP 10.3(a)(6).
Lesson
In an unpublished opinion, a Division One panel said in a footnote that citing nonexistent or misleading authorities violates RAP 10.3(a)(6), and imposed no penalty.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Merz v. Jenkins, No. 87782-8-I (Wash. Ct. App. June 15, 2026) (unpublished) (Coburn, J.)
- Decided
- June 15, 2026
Summary
Matthew Merz, representing himself, sued Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, and Melinda Finn-Kamerath in Cowlitz County Superior Court for defamation-based torts and unlawful harassment, alleging they published a website portraying him negatively during his tenure as a Kalama city councilmember. After Merz filed no response and missed the hearing, a court commissioner granted summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice and ordered sanctions against him under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185, finding the claims frivolous and filed for improper purposes and citing "[Merz's] egregious conduct, including threats of physical harm." On appeal, Merz's brief drew at least four citation findings from the Court of Appeals: he "incorrectly cites and quotes Olson" for a leniency rule that case does not state; he cited Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, a CR 37(b) discovery-sanctions case, as though it governed CR 11; he asserted that RCW 2.24.040 contains language it "does not contain," with cites that "do not support this proposition"; and he "improperly attributes a nonexistent quotation from 'the Supreme Court'" to State ex rel. McCool v. Small Claims Court, 12 Wn. App. 799 (1975). The sanctions on review rested, per the findings quoted in the opinion, on frivolous claims, improper purpose, and threats, not on citation errors.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion flags a nonexistent quotation and misused authorities but does not attribute them to AI or name a tool)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In an unpublished opinion, Division One affirmed the commissioner's order granting summary judgment and awarding CR 11 sanctions against Merz, and the superior court judge's order denying revision of the commissioner's denial of reconsideration. It held that the trial court was not required to grant a third CR 56(f) continuance Merz never requested, that the CR 11 order contained adequate findings, that Merz had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that he did not show his reconsideration evidence was newly discovered. On the briefing defects, the court imposed no appellate sanction. In footnote 7 it stated: "A party's citation to nonexistent or misleading authorities violates RAP 10.3(a)(6). Everyone, including pro se litigants, are responsible to confirm their pleadings, motions, briefs, and other filings are accurate and supported by properly represented authority." The opinion does not state the amount of the trial-court award.
Why does Merz v. Jenkins matter for law firms using AI?
Merz v. Jenkins belongs in the tracker for its footnotes, not its holding. The sanctions question on appeal concerned a trial-court award under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185, grounded in findings of frivolous claims, improper purpose, and “egregious conduct, including threats of physical harm,” which the Court of Appeals upheld because the order contained adequate findings, Merz did not challenge them, and he had notice and an opportunity to be heard. The citation problems arose separately, in Merz’s own appellate brief, and the court addressed them in passing: it corrected his use of In re Marriage of Olson, noted that Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance concerns CR 37(b) discovery sanctions, found that RCW 2.24.040 does not contain the language he attributed to it, and identified a quotation he attributed to State ex rel. McCool v. Small Claims Court that does not exist.
The court imposed nothing for those defects, but footnote 7 stated the rule it applied: “A party’s citation to nonexistent or misleading authorities violates RAP 10.3(a)(6). Everyone, including pro se litigants, are responsible to confirm their pleadings, motions, briefs, and other filings are accurate and supported by properly represented authority.” The opinion does not mention artificial intelligence. Charlotin’s tracker lists AI use as implied from the pattern of a nonexistent quotation attached to a real citation.
For firms, the entry is a single data point from an unpublished decision on how a Division One panel responded when nonexistent authority appeared in a brief but did not affect the outcome. The panel identified each defect, placed the violation under RAP 10.3(a)(6), and decided the appeal on the merits.
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 every quotation against the cited opinion, not only the case name and reporter cite. The defect here was a nonexistent quotation attributed to a real case.
- Consider that a Division One panel stated, in an unpublished opinion's footnote, that a party's citation to 'nonexistent or misleading authorities violates RAP 10.3(a)(6)', which gives opposing counsel a rule-based ground to raise the issue.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (listed as 'Implied'). The opinion identifies a nonexistent quotation and misused authorities but never mentions artificial intelligence.
- The Charlotin row records the outcome as 'Sanctions affirmed.' The sanctions the Court of Appeals affirmed were imposed in the trial court under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185; the findings quoted in the opinion refer to frivolous claims, improper purposes, and conduct including threats of physical harm. The respondents' sanctions motion is not in the appellate record, and the opinion does not say whether any trial-court filing contained nonexistent authority.