Goldman v. Arizona Board of Regents
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona · D. Ariz. · Arizona bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Goldman v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, No. CV-25-01420-PHX-JJT, 2025 WL 3018812 (D. Ariz. Oct. 29, 2025)
- Decided
- October 29, 2025
Summary
Counsel for plaintiff Robert Cole Stemkowski Goldman filed a Response to a motion to dismiss that cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit decision, "Morley v. City of San Rafael, 728 F. App'x 682, 684 (9th Cir. 2018)," for the proposition that qualified immunity cannot be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Response also attributed a fabricated quote, "no heightened pleading of legal theories, facts suffice," to Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014); the cited language does not appear in that decision. Judge John J. Tuchi observed that the Response and the underlying complaint contained "unusual language formulations" indicating the use of generative AI without sufficient attorney review.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
The court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause within 14 days why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, to provide an explanation for the briefing defects, and to produce any copy of the apparently hallucinated Morley decision. The court also granted in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing 11 of 15 claims without leave to amend.
Why does Goldman v. Arizona Board of Regents matter for law firms using AI?
Goldman illustrates a quieter failure mode than the wholesale fabricated-citation cases: a single hallucinated Ninth Circuit decision and a misattributed Supreme Court quote, embedded in an otherwise routine response brief. The order is also notable for the court’s use of stylistic tells, “unusual language formulations” across both the complaint and response, as circumstantial evidence of unreviewed generative-AI drafting. For firms supervising associate or contract-attorney filings, the case underscores that Rule 11 exposure attaches to even a single unverified citation when the surrounding prose suggests AI authorship.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.