AI Citation Sanctions Roundup, Week 5: A Nonmonetary Rule 11 Sanction in Colorado, a Typo Defense in EDNY, a Show Cause Order in C.D. Cal.
Short answer: three federal courts ruled on bad citations September 28 to 30, 2026. Colorado imposed a nonmonetary Rule 11 sanction, a mandatory AI certification. EDNY denied sanctions over two typos. C.D. Cal. set a sanctions and State Bar referral hearing.
These orders reached the AI Hallucination Cases database after our week four roundup; it lists no United States entry dated after September 30. Each order was read in full and checked against a second copy or the court’s own records. What we could not verify is named at the bottom.
What did the District of Colorado do in Garcia v. City of Monte Vista?
On September 29, 2026, Senior Judge William J. Martínez entered an “Order Making Absolute Order to Show Cause and Imposing Rule 11 Sanction” in Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado, No. 25-cv-0769-WJM-KAS (D. Colo.), ECF No. 126. The problem was defense counsel’s motion to dismiss, which attributed language to Miller v. Spiers, 339 F. App’x 862 (10th Cir. 2009), that the opinion does not contain. Counsel explained that the text came from his “own notes and summaries” and “ultimately appeared in the [M]otion as though it were a quotation from a case.”
The court did not need to resolve whether AI was involved. It wrote that it “has no way of knowing whether the nonexistent quotation from Miller was a product of Mr. Krenning’s research and drafting process or the use of AI, but it will accept his representations as true.” It held anyway that “attributing a nonexistent quotation to an existing case . . . violates Rule 11(b).” The quotation marks were the violation.
The remedy is the useful part. The court found monetary sanctions “too harsh a sanction” on these facts and imposed instead, “[a]s a nonmonetary sanction,” a standing requirement: all future filings by the Law Office of Troy D. Krenning, LLC and Mr. Krenning “shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.” That is Rule 11(c)(4) in action: a sanction “limited to what suffices to deter repetition.” And it attaches to every future filing the order covers, not just the offending motion.
Why did EDNY deny sanctions in Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers?
This is the defense-side case of the week. In Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc., No. 22-cv-4974 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026), Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon denied a motion by the plaintiff’s new counsel to sanction her former attorney under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent power. The motion called two citations “hallucinated.” They were real cases with wrong volume numbers: Mpala v. Segarra was filed as 715 Fed. Appx. 84 instead of 718 F. App’x 84, and LinkCo as 357 instead of 367 F. App’x 180.
The court accepted the explanation of “two inadvertent mistakes.” On § 1927 and inherent power, fee sanctions “must always be supported by a finding of bad faith,” and none was shown. On Rule 11: “Plaintiff’s arguments for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 likewise fail.” The bottom line: “Two exceedingly minor typographical errors do not justify this motion.” The movant did not walk away clean. The court warned that “continuing and repeating this behavior in any other cases will likely result in the imposition of sanctions and referral to discipline.” It also observed that AI use alone would not violate Rule 11.
A wrong volume number on a real case is a typo, not a fabrication, and calling it a hallucination invites the court to examine the movant.
C.D. Cal. order to show cause: Chechitelli v. Etiwanda School District
On Monday, September 28, 2026, Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order in Chechitelli v. Etiwanda School District, No. 5:26-cv-03777-MWC-SP (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 18, captioned as an order to show cause re monetary sanctions and State Bar referral of plaintiff’s counsel for breach of the duty of candor. The complaint, filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court and removed, pleaded most of its claims under the California Education Code. The court wrote that “there are no private causes of action for damages arising out of violations of the California Education Code,” and that the defects “bear the hallmarks of” AI hallucinations.
The trigger was nonexistent causes of action, not a fake case. Counsel was ordered to file a written response by September 29 that “shall address whether generative artificial intelligence was used to draft Plaintiff’s Complaint,” and to appear in person on October 2, 2026. The court’s own October 2 calendar for Courtroom 6A lists “Order to Show Cause re Sanctions (Dkt. 18)” in the case. We have not seen a ruling on the order to show cause, so we report none.
The rule text behind this week’s orders
| Provision | Operative language | Source read |
|---|---|---|
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) | “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) | “On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4) | “A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” | law.cornell.edu |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1927 | An attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” | law.cornell.edu |
| Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(2) | “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to extend, modify, or reverse existing law, or to establish new law” | law.cornell.edu (restyled eff. Dec. 1, 2024) |
| Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)(2) | “The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” | california.public.law and codes.findlaw.com, agreeing |
| 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1) | Conduct is frivolous if “it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” | law.cornell.edu |
Drafting-ready text: an AI certification modeled on Garcia
The Garcia court supplied its own example of the non-use version: “The undersigned counsel certifies/certify that generative artificial intelligence was not used to draft this filing.” The block below tracks each element of the order. Check the assigned judge’s own order first; our AI disclosure tracker covers California and New York.
AI CERTIFICATION Each undersigned individual contributed to the drafting of [DOCUMENT] and certifies as follows: [Select one] A. Generative artificial intelligence was not used to draft this filing. B. Generative artificial intelligence ([NAME OF TOOL]) was used in drafting this filing for: [TASKS]. Any language drafted by that tool, including language later edited by a person, was personally reviewed for accuracy by [NAME]. Every legal citation in this filing was retrieved and read by a person, and each refers to an actual, non-fictitious case or other authority that supports the proposition for which it is cited. Every passage in quotation marks was compared word for word against the source at the page cited. Dated: [DATE] _______________________ _______________________ [NAME], [ROLE] [NAME], [ROLE]
Worked example: counting the Chechitelli deadlines
Under Rule 6(a)(1) you “exclude the day of the event that triggers the period,” “count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays,” and roll forward only if the last day is a weekend or legal holiday. Applied to the September 28, 2026 order:
- Written response: due Tuesday, September 29, 2026. One day. Set by the order, not by any rule.
- In-person hearing: Friday, October 2, 2026. Four days from the order.
- Amended complaint or dismissal: if the 21 days run from the order, exclude September 28 and count 21 days, landing on Monday, October 19, 2026. Columbus Day, Monday, October 12, falls inside the period and counts. October 19 is not a weekend or holiday, so nothing rolls. Rule 6(d) adds three days only for service by mail, leaving with the clerk, or other consented means, not for an order you receive through CM/ECF.
Cross-jurisdiction contrast, limited to what we verified today
Federal district court. Three separate tools, three standards. Rule 11(b)(2) asks whether the legal contentions are warranted, and Garcia shows a court can find a violation and still choose a nonmonetary sanction under Rule 11(c)(4). Section 1927 and inherent power require bad faith, which is why Nantongo failed. Full mechanics in Rule 11 and the AI-Generated Brief.
Bankruptcy court. Rule 9011(b)(2) carries the same certification as Rule 11(b)(2), restyled effective December 1, 2024. No bankruptcy decision appeared this window.
California state court. Section 128.7(b)(2) mirrors the federal text, and a motion under section 128.7(c)(1) cannot be filed unless the challenged paper is not withdrawn or corrected “within 21 days after service of the motion.” The Chechitelli complaint was first filed in superior court, where section 128.7, not Rule 11, is the sanctions statute. Sanctions and State Bar discipline are separate tracks, and a referral is not a finding.
New York state court. Part 130 is a costs and fees regime. Conduct is frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1) if “completely without merit in law.” We verified no New York state decision this week and describe none.
Pre-filing checklist
- Never put your own notes or summaries inside quotation marks. That is exactly how the Garcia quotation was born.
- Confirm every cause of action exists before you plead it, including whether the statute gives a private right of action. Chechitelli involved no fake case at all.
- Check the volume and first page of every reporter cite separately from the case name. Nantongo was decided on typos; your next opponent may be less forgiving.
- Before moving for sanctions over a bad cite, pull the real case. If it exists and supports the point, you have a typo, not a motion.
- If any drafter used generative AI, record the tool, the tasks, and who reviewed the output, so you can sign a Garcia certification truthfully.
- Run the protocol in A Pre-Filing Citation Verification Protocol and keep the log. See the longer sanctions record for how often its absence becomes the finding.
Before you sign the next AI certification
An AI certification is only as good as the verification behind it. LegalBriefsUSA runs a citation verification pass on your brief, whoever drafted it, and returns a log showing each authority, the source pulled, and every quotation checked word for word, so the certification you sign is accurate. If you are about to accuse opposing counsel of hallucinated citations, we will also pull the cases first, so a typo does not become your problem.
Authorities cited
Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado, No. 25-cv-0769-WJM-KAS (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2026), ECF No. 126, read in two copies that agree: the PDF in the AI Hallucination Cases database and the RECAP copy at storage.courtlistener.com. Nantongo v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers Inc., No. 22-cv-4974 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2026), read in the database PDF and in the court opinion published by govinfo.gov. Chechitelli v. Etiwanda School District, No. 5:26-cv-03777-MWC-SP (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2026), Dkt. 18, read in the database PDF and corroborated by the court’s own October 2, 2026 calendar for Courtroom 6A. Rule text read today at law.cornell.edu: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Section 128.7 read on california.public.law and codes.findlaw.com, agreeing.
Left out for lack of verification. Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund v. Choice Hotels (M.D. La. Sept. 28, 2026) and Curran v. Mom’s Organic Market (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2026) were read in the database copy only; we found no second source, so neither is described. The outcome of the October 2 Chechitelli hearing is not reported because we did not see it. Authorities the three courts cited for their standards were not opened and are not relied on. Thirteen pro se entries were not reviewed. Nothing here addresses malpractice.
LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.