Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · N.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Here plaintiff cited a Westlaw decision that the court found does not exist; the case it likely meant held the opposite of what was claimed.
Consequence
No sanction. In an order dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice, the court warned counsel that any future submission of nonexistent authority may draw sanctions.
Lesson
Here the court voiced concern about AI in a footnote and issued a warning, in an order that already rested on a limitations bar.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 4:24-cv-04829-YGR, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2026), Dkt. No. 130
- Decided
- June 22, 2026
Summary
Maria Zhdanovich-Doty, on behalf of her late husband James Doty, brings this action against Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company for breach of contract and insurance bad faith over the denial of residual disability benefits. The court had earlier granted judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 118) and, in that order, cautioned plaintiff's counsel about their Rule 11 obligation not to advance false allegations about when proof of loss was submitted. Provident moved to dismiss the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 121). Plaintiff cited "Moss v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, 2009 WL 4348607 (S.D. Cal. 2009)," which the court stated "does not exist." The court believed plaintiff intended a different Moss decision, 2009 WL 10671659 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009), but stated that it "does not stand for the proposition for which plaintiff cites it, nor does it include the quoted language." The court stated that the case "holds the opposite," namely "that a plaintiff could not assert equitable estoppel to defeat a contractual limitations argument."
- AI tool:
- Suspected, no tool named (the court states it "is concerned that plaintiff's counsel relied on an artificial intelligence tool that generated a nonexistent case citation"; no finding or admission)
- Amount or terms:
- None; counsel was placed "on notice that any future submission of nonexistent authority may result in appropriate sanctions"
What did the court warn about?
In its June 22, 2026 order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Provident's motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied leave to amend as futile, holding that the policy's contractual limitations provision bars the claims. In a footnote, the court stated: "The Court is concerned that plaintiff's counsel relied on an artificial intelligence tool that generated a nonexistent case citation. Counsel is on notice that any future submission of nonexistent authority may result in appropriate sanctions." No sanction was imposed.
Why does Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company matter for law firms using AI?
Zhdanovich-Doty is a long-delayed disability-benefits suit in which the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice under the policy’s contractual limitations provision; Provident’s counterclaims remained pending. The AI issue appears in a single footnote. Plaintiff cited a Westlaw decision that does not exist; the court identified the Moss decision it believed plaintiff meant and found that it neither contained the quoted language nor supported the proposition, and in fact held the opposite.
The court stated its concern that counsel “relied on an artificial intelligence tool that generated a nonexistent case citation” and put counsel on notice that future submissions of nonexistent authority “may result in appropriate sanctions.” It imposed nothing further.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here a single footnote in a merits ruling recorded both a nonexistent citation and a misdescribed holding, and that the court’s warning extends to “any future submission” of nonexistent authority.
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 both the citation and the holding of each authority. Here the case the court believed counsel meant held the opposite of the proposition it was cited for.
- Document citation checks for Westlaw citations as well as reporter citations. The nonexistent authority here was cited only by a Westlaw number.
- Consider that the court raised the AI concern in the same case in which it had already cautioned counsel about Rule 11 on a different issue.
Sources
Primary sources
- The AI attribution is the court's stated concern, not a finding; the order does not say whether counsel was asked about or admitted AI use.
- The order does not identify plaintiff's counsel by name or quote the language plaintiff attributed to Moss.