Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division · W.D. Tenn. · Tennessee bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se judgment debtor quoted a 2009 Tennessee appellate decision that does not exist as cited; the quote appears in no court opinion the judge could find.
Consequence
Here the court denied his request and imposed no sanction, but warned that further fictitious citations or quotations may lead to sanctions, including monetary ones.
Lesson
Here the court tied its AI suspicion to the litigant's own earlier statements that he uses AI to generate his filings.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson, No. 2:23-cv-2186-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 11, 2025) (Lipman, C.J.) (Order Denying Request for Post-Judgment Accounting, ECF No. 283)
- Decided
- September 11, 2025
Summary
Dennis Michael Philipson, proceeding pro se against a judgment in favor of Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), filed a request for a post-judgment accounting (ECF No. 224). He asserted that in Tennessee "courts have emphasized" that a judgment debtor is entitled to know the basis of the amounts claimed, quoting First Nat'l Bank of Polk Cnty. v. Goss, No. E2008-01530-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2046052 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2009). In a September 11, 2025 order (ECF No. 283), Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman wrote that "the case as cited does not exist"; a case with those parties was decided in 1995 (912 S.W.2d 147), dealt with the timeliness of an appeal, and does not contain the quote, and after "an exhaustive search" the court did not find the quoted language in any state or federal order or opinion. Because Philipson had told the court at previous status conferences that he uses artificial intelligence to generate the content in his filings, the court said it "suspects that the citation is fabricated, and the quote concocted, both likely created by a generative artificial intelligence tool."
- AI tool:
- Suspected generative AI, tool not named (the court "suspects" the citation and quote were "likely created by a generative artificial intelligence tool," noting Philipson had said at earlier status conferences that he uses AI to generate his filings' content)
What did the court warn about?
The court denied the request for a post-judgment accounting, explaining that the documents forming the basis of the judgment were already in the record. It imposed no sanction. In its discussion the court cited Rule 11(c)(5)(B), which bars a court from imposing a monetary sanction on its own without first issuing a Rule 11(c)(3) show-cause order, and described the "scourge of fictitious case citations" and the harms Mata v. Avianca and other courts have identified. It then warned: "going forward, if Mr. Philipson files anything else in this matter and those filings contain fictitious case citations or fictitious quotations, the Court will consider imposing sanctions against him, including monetary ones."
Why does Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson matter for law firms using AI?
Mid-America v. Philipson is a post-judgment order in which the court flagged a nonexistent citation and an unlocatable quotation and responded with a warning. Chief Judge Lipman traced the citation to a real 1995 case with the same parties that concerned a different issue, and then searched more broadly for the quoted sentence without finding it in any court’s opinion. She connected the problem to generative AI through Philipson’s own statements at earlier status conferences that he uses AI to generate his filings, but she expressed that connection as a suspicion (“likely created by a generative artificial intelligence tool”) rather than a finding.
The order does not impose sanctions. It reviews the harms courts have attributed to fictitious citations, citing Mata v. Avianca and other decisions, notes that Rule 11 applies to pro se litigants and that a court may not impose a monetary sanction on its own without first issuing a show-cause order, and then warns Philipson that fictitious citations or quotations in any further filing in the matter could lead the court to consider sanctions, including monetary ones. The request itself was denied because, as the court explained, “the documentation he seeks is in the record.”
For firms facing a pro se opponent, the order illustrates a court placing a litigant on explicit notice before any sanction. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider keeping a record of such warnings, since here the court stated in writing what it would consider if the conduct recurred.
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.
- Document what an opposing pro se litigant says on the record about AI use; here the court relied on the defendant's statements at earlier status conferences in assessing the citation.
- Verify quotations against the cited opinion and not only the case name; here a real case with the same parties existed but did not contain the quoted language.
- Review the procedural path for sanctions; here the court noted that Rule 11(c)(5)(B) requires a show-cause order before it may impose a monetary sanction on its own, and it issued a warning.
Sources
Primary sources
- The specific AI tool Philipson used is not identified; the court states only that he represented at previous status conferences that he uses AI to generate the content in his filings, and it frames AI origin as a suspicion.