Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2

What sanction did the court impose?

The court held that "Petitioner's counsel violated Rule 11" and found "that a non-monetary sanction is appropriate," citing "Rule 11(b)(4)" (the rule's sanction provision is Rule 11(c)(4)), "to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." It "ADMONISHES Petitioner's counsel on the public record for his conduct" and stated that it "expects that Petitioner's counsel will be more careful in his case citations in future cases." No monetary sanction or referral was ordered. On the merits, the court granted ConEd's and the union's Rule 12(b)(6) motions, holding that the petition did not plausibly allege that the union breached its duty of fair representation, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Why does Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 matter for law firms using AI?

The citation issue in Waggeh arose in a routine labor-arbitration case. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator’s award upholding his termination should be vacated because it contradicted an unemployment ALJ’s finding of no misconduct, and supported the argument with state and federal decisions. The May 16 opinion, citing the court’s April 22 order, states that the petitioner’s opposition memoranda “cited cases that do not stand for the propositions for which they were cited,” and records that the April 22 order directed counsel to show cause under Rule 11. Counsel’s declaration admitted that four cases were incorrectly cited and that one argument lacked support, and he withdrew the ALJ argument.

The ruling on sanctions is brief. Magistrate Judge Aaron quoted Rule 11(b)(2)‘s certification that legal contentions are “warranted by existing law,” held that counsel violated Rule 11, and weighed two points the order states: the court was “somewhat dubious about the explanation provided for how this occurred,” and counsel “took responsibility for his actions.” In those circumstances it found a non-monetary sanction appropriate “to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated” and admonished counsel “on the public record.” The order does not discuss artificial intelligence, and it does not describe the explanation counsel gave.

The case illustrates that the citation defects in this entry were misattributed propositions rather than invented cases. The order does not say any cited case is nonexistent; the Rule 11 finding is framed under Rule 11(b)(2), the certification that legal contentions are warranted by existing law.