Moore v. MC Architects Inc., et al.

William Mark Moore v. MC Architects Inc.; Lito T. Panida; and Does 1 through 20, D. Haw., Civ. No. 24-00367 JMS-KJM, merits order filed May 5, 2026 reciting the sanctions agreement reached at the April 8, 2026 hearing. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-147-moore-v-mc-architects.pdf`.

The plaintiff's client took the lead role in preparing the oppositions and used AI tools in the process, producing record- and case-citation errors. Plaintiff's counsel Frederick Arensmeyer accepted full responsibility for the issues.

Rule 11 and the signing attorney's non-delegable duty of reasonable inquiry. Counsel agreed to the court's proposed $1,000 sanction without the need for an order to show cause. The $1,000 sanction was imposed against Arensmeyer personally, payable to the Clerk of Court within seven days (ECF No. 78). Flag: the sanction was imposed by a separate sanctions order (ECF No. 78, April 9, 2026) recited in the May 5, 2026 merits order; ECF No. 78 was misidentified as a hearing transcript in the full-pass Stage 0/Stage 1 records and is corrected here per the Stage 2 verdict.

Counsel cannot delegate drafting to a client using AI without review; the signature certifies counsel's own verification. Screen client-assisted drafts the same way as associate-drafted ones.

---