Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Mata on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Mata v. Avianca, Inc

Court
S.D. New York
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2023-06-22
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
Monetary Fine (Lawyers & Firm); Letters to Client/Judges
Monetary penalty
5000 USD

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Texas appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Georgia appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Fifth Circuit case; reporter cite actually corresponds to a Fourth Circuit case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case at 92 F.3d 1074. || Fabricated: Case Law | Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case; citation corresponds to an unrelated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited an Eleventh Circuit Zicherman decision and citation that does not exist; real Zicherman is a Supreme Court case and unrelated Eleventh Circuit cite is Miccosukee Tribe. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mis-cited a bankruptcy decision and reporter; the cited Bankruptcy Reporter citation is to a different case and Second Circuit BDC 56 did not address the stay. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Relied on a Seventh Circuit decision that addresses Rule 11 sanctions, not the bankruptcy stay. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Identified as a Second Circuit case and cited for the bankruptcy stay, but it is a Third Circuit decision that does not address the stay. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case addresses whether a trustee may recover certain payments to the IRS. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case concerned a stay pending state-court proceedings on state constitutional issues. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case involved denial of a motion to compel arbitration. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Eleventh Circuit opinion; Clerk confirmed no such case, docket/citation matched other matters, and the text contained gibberish analysis. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Second Circuit decision; docket number and reporter citation belonged to unrelated cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent D.D.C. decision; docket and citations corresponded to different cases and even cited itself as precedent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Illinois appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language about the purpose of the Montreal Convention that does not appear in the decision.

Details

AI UseCounsel from Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT for legal research to oppose a motion to dismiss a personal injury claim against Avianca airlines, citing difficulty accessing relevant federal precedent through their limited research subscription.Hallucination DetailsThe attorneys' submission included at least six completely non-existent judicial decisions, complete with fabricated quotes and internal citations. Examples cited by the court include Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.. When challenged by opposing counsel and the court, the attorneys initially stood by the fake cases and even submitted purported copies of the opinions, which were also generated by ChatGPT and contained further bogus citations.Ruling/SanctionJudge P. Kevin Castel imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction jointly and severally on the two attorneys and their law firm. He also required them to send letters informing their client and each judge whose name was falsely used on the fabricated opinions about the situation.Key Judicial ReasoningJudge Castel found the attorneys acted in bad faith, emphasizing their "acts of conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements to the Court" after the issue was raised. The sanctions were imposed not merely for the initial error but for the failure in their gatekeeping roles and their decision to "double down" rather than promptly correcting the record. The opinion detailed the extensive harms caused by submitting fake opinions. This case is widely considered a landmark decision and is frequently cited in subsequent discussions and guidance.

Sanction teardown · S.D. New York, USA · 2023-06-22

Mata v. Avianca, Inc

What happened

In S.D. New York, USA, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent Texas appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent Georgia appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Fifth Circuit case; reporter cite actually corresponds to a Fourth Circuit case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case at 92 F.3d 1074.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Internal citation in the fake Varghese opinion to a non-existent Eleventh Circuit case; citation corresponds to an unrelated case.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited an Eleventh Circuit Zicherman decision and citation that does not exist; real Zicherman is a Supreme Court case and unrelated Eleventh Circuit cite is Miccosukee Tribe.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Mis-cited a bankruptcy decision and reporter; the cited Bankruptcy Reporter citation is to a different case and Second Circuit BDC 56 did not address the stay.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Relied on a Seventh Circuit decision that addresses Rule 11 sanctions, not the bankruptcy stay.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Identified as a Second Circuit case and cited for the bankruptcy stay, but it is a Third Circuit decision that does not address the stay.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case addresses whether a trustee may recover certain payments to the IRS.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case concerned a stay pending state-court proceedings on state constitutional issues.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited for a bankruptcy-stay proposition, but the case involved denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent Eleventh Circuit opinion; Clerk confirmed no such case, docket/citation matched other matters, and the text contained gibberish analysis.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent Second Circuit decision; docket number and reporter citation belonged to unrelated cases.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent D.D.C. decision; docket and citations corresponded to different cases and even cited itself as precedent.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Non-existent Illinois appellate decision generated by ChatGPT and submitted as authority.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Quoted language about the purpose of the Montreal Convention that does not appear in the decision.

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Monetary Fine (Lawyers & Firm); Letters to Client/Judges (monetary penalty: 5000 USD.)

Additional detail

AI UseCounsel from Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT for legal research to oppose a motion to dismiss a personal injury claim against Avianca airlines, citing difficulty accessing relevant federal precedent through their limited research subscription.Hallucination DetailsThe attorneys' submission included at least six completely non-existent judicial decisions, complete with fabricated quotes and internal citations. Examples cited by the court include Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.. When challenged by opposing counsel and the court, the attorneys initially stood by the fake cases and even submitted purported copies of the opinions, which were also generated by ChatGPT and contained further bogus citations.Ruling/SanctionJudge P. Kevin Castel imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction jointly and severally on the two attorneys and their law firm. He also required them to send letters informing their client and each judge whose name was falsely used on the fabricated opinions about the situation.Key Judicial ReasoningJudge Castel found the attorneys acted in bad faith, emphasizing their "acts of conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements to the Court" after the issue was raised. The sanctions were imposed not merely for the initial error but for the failure in their gatekeeping roles and their decision to "double down" rather than promptly correcting the record. The opinion detailed the extensive harms caused by submitting fake opinions. This case is widely considered a landmark decision and is frequently cited in subsequent discussions and guidance.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_8.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0_8.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template