Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · S.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel cited a decision that left the question open as holding the motion untimely; the brief was titled "CoCounsel Skill Results" (the court declined, at this juncture, to link the two).
Consequence
No sanction. The court granted the opposing motion, declined, at this juncture, to link the error to AI, and cautioned counsel that the attorney relying on AI bears the Rule 11 duty.
Lesson
Here the court noticed a CoCounsel title and author metadata left in a brief that also miscited a case, and reminded counsel of Rule 11 while declining, at this juncture, to attribute the error to AI.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, No. 25-cv-23581-JTK, Order (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2026) (Hernandez, M.J.), ECF No. 116
- Decided
- September 2, 2026
Summary
In a patent infringement action over an adjustable motor mount, plaintiff Sea Swivel Inc. moved to strike seven of defendant Shuttleslide LLC's affirmative defenses. Shuttleslide argued the motion was untimely because the same defenses had appeared in its answer to an earlier complaint, asserting that courts in the district had denied later motions in that situation and stating: "Pursuant to Affordable Aerial Photo., Inc. at 2, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is untimely." The court noted that, "[d]espite using the plural form, Shuttleslide cites only one case to support this observation," and that Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. v. Abdelsayed (S.D. Fla. 2022) had expressly declined to decide whether a fresh 21-day period began with the answer to an amended complaint. The court called a line in that response "deeply perplexing," since the cited decision "is expressly silent on the question of timeliness." It then observed that Shuttleslide's response was titled "CoCounsel Skill Results" and that the filing's metadata listed CoCounsel in the author field.
- AI tool:
- CoCounsel, apparently (the court noted the response was titled "CoCounsel Skill Results" and its metadata listed CoCounsel as author, calling this an "apparent use of AI"; it would not, "at this juncture," draw a causal link between that use and the miscited case)
What did the court warn about?
Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez, deciding the motion on referral from Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz, granted the motion to strike in full: three defenses were construed as denials and four were stricken with leave to amend. The court held the motion timely because the Second Amended Complaint and Shuttleslide's July 2, 2026 answer superseded the earlier pleadings. On the AI point, the court stated that it "will not, at this juncture, draw a causal link between this apparent use of AI and counsel's mistaken reliance on Affordable Aerial Photography," but cautioned counsel "that, while AI has no Rule 11 obligations, the attorney who relies on it does," citing Rule 11(b) and ByoPlanet Int'l, LLC v. Johansson (S.D. Fla. 2025). No sanction was imposed or threatened, and no show-cause order issued.
Why does Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Sea Swivel is a low-stakes order that shows how an apparently AI-assisted filing can surface in an ordinary motion ruling. The question was whether Sea Swivel’s motion to strike was untimely because Shuttleslide had pleaded the same defenses in an earlier answer. Shuttleslide said that courts in the district had denied such motions, but cited one case, and Magistrate Judge Hernandez quoted that case’s own words showing it had assumed the point without deciding it (“an issue I do not decide”). Finding the “[p]ursuant to” framing “deeply perplexing,” the court went on to hold the motion timely on the ordinary rule that an amended pleading supersedes the earlier one.
The AI discussion is brief and carefully limited. Introduced as “[o]ne final observation, regrettably necessary in the age of AI,” it notes that the response was titled “CoCounsel Skill Results” and, in a footnote, that the filing’s metadata listed CoCounsel as author. The court expressly declined, “at this juncture,” to connect that apparent AI use to the miscitation, and it framed its remark as a caution rather than a finding. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that residual tool labels and document metadata are visible to the court, and that in this case they prompted a Rule 11 reminder even without any conclusion that the tool produced the error.
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.
- Review filings for tool artifacts before submission. The court noticed the response's title and its document metadata, both of which identified CoCounsel.
- Verify that a cited decision actually decides the point it is cited for. The court quoted Affordable Aerial Photography's own statement that it did not decide the timeliness issue.
- Document citation checks for AI-assisted drafting. The court reminded counsel that Rule 11 obligations rest with the attorney who relies on the tool.
Sources
Primary sources
- Whether AI caused the miscitation is not established: the court expressly declined to draw a causal link between the apparent CoCounsel use and the reliance on Affordable Aerial Photography. The Charlotin tracker lists the case as a CoCounsel misrepresentation; the entry treats the AI connection as the court's observation, not a finding.