Gibralter, LLC, et al. v. DMS Flowers, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY 14 ACTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE AGAINST DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et al., COUNSEL LAURIE DOUCE NORMANDIN 15 Defendants. (Doc. 115) 16

7-DAY DEADLINE 17

18 Relevant Background 19 On June 9, 2025, Defendant Teleflora, LLC (“Teleflora”) filed a motion to dismiss the first 20 amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC (“Gibralter”), and Divinely, Inc. 21 (“Divinely”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 111). On June 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an 22 opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 115). On July 3, 2025, Teleflora filed a reply. (Doc. 23 121). Following review of the parties’ filings made in connection with the motion, the Court 24 deemed the motion is suitable for disposition without hearing and oral argument. (Doc. 122) (citing 25 Local Rule 230(g)). 26 Order to Show Cause 27 In Plaintiffs’ opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs cite to “Innovation Ventures, LLC, v. Pitts, 202 F. Supp. 3d 356, 363 (E.D. Mich. 2016)” in support of their assertion 1 that both Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as trademark owner and exclusive licensee. 2 (Doc. 115 at 7). The case also is listed in the table of authorities of Plaintiffs’ opposition. Id. at 4. 3 During the Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ opposition, the Court attempted to locate the Pitts case 4 cited in Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss but was unable to find any record 5 despite the Court’s extensive research efforts on both Westlaw and LEXIS. No search results 6 matched either the parties to the Pitts action, the purportedly published citation number, the district 7 court, or the year. It appears this case does not exist, is fictitious, and, as the Court suspects, is a 8 hallucinated case which Plaintiffs have cited to and generated from the improper and undisclosed 9 use of artificial intelligence (“AI”). The markings of the fictitious case indicate Plaintiffs’ citation 10 thereto is not merely a scrivener’s error. 11 Local Rule 110 of this Court provides: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with 12 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 13 all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. 14 Moreover, Local Rule 180(e) provides: “Standards of Professional Conduct. Every member 15 of the Bar of this Court, and any attorney permitted to practice in this Court under (b), shall become 16 familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the 17 State Bar of California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the 18 State Bar of California, and court decisions applicable thereto, which are hereby adopted as 19 standards of professional conduct in this Court. In the absence of an applicable standard therein, 20 the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association may be considered 21 guidance. No attorney admitted to practice before this Court shall engage in any conduct that 22 degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court or in any manner interferes with the administration 23 of justice.” L.R. 180(e). 24 Local Rule 184(a) provides: “Discipline. In the event any attorney subject to these Rules 25 engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate Judge 26 may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, after 27 reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate 1 | Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court before which the 2 | attorney has been admitted to practice.” L.R. 184(a). 3 Plaintiffs’ brief in which the fictious Pitts case is cited is signed by counsel of record Laurie 4 | Doucet Normandin. By signing the brief, counsel represented that it was not being presented for 5 || any improper purpose, including to cause unnecessary delay, and that all legal contentions set forth 6 | therein are warranted by existing law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). By signing a legal brief that cites 7 | fictitious law, it appears sanctions against counsel may be warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). 8 Accordingly, the Court will order counsel for Plaintiffs, Laurie Doucet Normandin, to show 9 || cause in writing within seven (7) days why sanctions should not be imposed or other disciplinary 10 | action should not issue in light of the suspected improper and undisclosed use of AI in citing to a 11 | hallucinated case in Plaintiffs’ opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiffs, Laurie Doucet 14 | Normandin, SHALL show cause in writing within seven (7) days from the entry of this order why 15 | sanctions should not be imposed or other disciplinary action should not issue in light of Counsel’s 16 | suspected improper and undisclosed use of AI in citing to a hallucinated case in Plaintiffs’ 17 | opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss. 18 Failure to comply with this order to show cause will result in the imposition of 19 | sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action. 20 | IT IS SOORDERED. | Dated: _ September 11, 2025 | hr 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28