Seither & Cherry Quad Cities v. Oakland Automation
The case
Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC (consolidated with AP Electric, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC), United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, July 28, 2025, Case Nos. 4:23-cv-11310 and 4:23-cv-11342 (consolidated sanctions order). Judge F. Kay Behm. Copy of primary document: ~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-75-seither-cherry-v-oakland-automation.pdf
What happened
Plaintiffs' counsel filed responsive briefings containing real case citations paired with fabricated quotations and explanatory parentheticals generated by artificial intelligence that did not accurately reflect the holdings of the cited cases. The court ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11(b)(2) and (c) and the court's inherent power for attributing fictitious quotations to court decisions.
The rule and the sanction
The court found a Rule 11(b)(2) violation and imposed a monetary sanction of $1,485, payable by plaintiffs' counsel (not the plaintiffs) directly to defense counsel, reflecting the party most directly injured. The court encouraged, but did not order, continuing legal education. Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-4_23-cv-11310/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-4_23-cv-11310-1.pdf
How it could have been avoided
Verify that every quotation and parenthetical in a brief matches the cited opinion's actual language and holding. Treat AI-generated explanatory parentheticals as drafts requiring human confirmation, not as finished citations.