1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 Jodell Dodge, No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 FirstService Residential Arizona LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 14 On November 6, 2025, the Court ordered Matthew V. Moosbrugger (“Mr. 15 Moosbrugger”) to appear at a Show Cause Hearing to explain why sanctions should not be 16 imposed on him for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. 30). On November 17 21, 2025, Mr. Moosbrugger appeared in front of this Court. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On July 11, 2025, Defendant submitted a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 20 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was set for July 25th, 21 however, Plaintiff failed to respond. Three days after the deadline, Plaintiff through 22 counsel, Mr. Moosbrugger, filed a Motion for Leave to file an untimely response, as well 23 as Plaintiff’s Response Brief. (Doc. 24). Defendant timely filed a Reply. (Doc. 28). 24 The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, holding that 25 Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (See Doc. 29). During the 26 Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Response Brief, the Court found numerous citation-related 27 deficiencies, which the Court noted in its Order of Dismissal. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff’s Response 28 Brief was replete with misrepresented case holdings, including one cited case that does not 1 exist. (See Doc. 30). Consequently, the Court ordered Mr. Moosbrugger to appear to show 2 cause, if any, why sanctions should not be imposed upon him for violating Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 11. See LRCiv 83.1(f). (Id. at 5). After issuing its Order, the Court found 4 additional citation-related deficiencies not mentioned in its initial Order, as well as multiple 5 citations deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave.1 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states, in relevant part, that “[b]y presenting to 8 the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper … an attorney or unrepresented party 9 certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief … the claims, 10 defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 11(b)(2). 12 A signature on a filing “certifies to the court that the signer has read the document, 13 has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is satisfied that the 14 document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper motive.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991). “[A]ny party 15 who signs a pleading, motion or other paper … [has] an affirmative duty to conduct a 16 reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing[.]” Id. at 551. “[T]he applicable 17 standard is one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Id. If the Court finds an 18 attorney has violated Rule 11(b), the Court “may impose an appropriate sanction” after the 19 Court has provided “notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 11(c)(1); see also Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999) 21 (requiring notice and opportunity to respond before imposing sanctions). 22
23 III. DISCUSSION 24 The Court found nine case citation deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Response Brief, including two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one case citation 25 that does not exist. The case citation deficiencies are summarized as follows: 26
27 1 The Court acknowledges that the citation deficiencies present in Plaintiff’s Motion to 28 Leave do not rise to the level of a Rule 11 violation. The Court will refrain from addressing them in detail. 1 Response Case cited Court’s observations 2 Brief page (as it appears in Plaintiff’s Response number Brief) 3 1 3 In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Case exists. Pincite is incorrect. 4 Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 The cited page addresses direct 5 (2000), the Supreme Court discriminatory age-based emphasized that circumstantial and comments resulting in 6 contextual evidence, including how termination. Rather than facially neutral comments are appearing at p. 151, it appears 7 perceived in light of prior age-related the proposition may be 8 treatment, may support an inference supported by p. 146-148. of unlawful discrimination. 9 2 3 Shelley v. Geren, the Ninth Circuit Case exists. Quoted language 10 held that “ambiguous or indirect” does not exist in the case. Pincite comments, when viewed is incorrect. Rather than 11 collectively, may permit a factfinder appearing at p. 608, it appears 12 to conclude that discrimination the proposition may be occurred. 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir. supported by p. 610-612. 13 2012). 14 3 3 The Ninth Circuit has recognized Case exists. Quoted language that the “severe or pervasive” does not exist in the case. 15 standard can be met by persistent 16 derogatory remarks and patterns of humiliation that interfere with the 17 plaintiff’s ability to perform her job. 18 See, Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 872–74 (9th Cir. 19 2001). 20 4 4 In Gestalt v. City of Gloucester, Case does not exist. 2021 WL 4169431 (D. Mass. 2021), 21 the court denied dismissal where the plaintiff was told she “dressed 22 young” and lacked the gravitas 23 expected of her role. 5 4 Under National R.R. Passenger Case exists. Quote is correct. 24 Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 Pincite is absent, but this issue 25 (2002), a hostile work environment does not constitute grounds for a claim is timely if “an act Rule 11 violation. 26 contributing to the claim occurs 27 within the filing period,” even if the conduct began earlier. 28 1 6 4 See also, Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Case exists. Quoted language Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 893 (9th Cir. does not exist in the case. 2 2005) (hostile acts before and within 3 300-day window are admissible if “sufficiently related to constitute part 4 of the same hostile environment”). 5 7 4 A constructive discharge occurs Case exists. Quoted language is where “a reasonable person in the mostly correct, however, it does 6 employee’s position would have felt not properly attribute the 7 compelled to resign because of internally quoted and adds intolerable and discriminatory “discriminatory.” 8 working conditions.” See, Poland v. 9 Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007. 10 8 5 Courts have repeatedly held that an Case exists. However, Thomas 11 employer’s failure to remedy a does not address protected known hostile environment based on classes’ support for constructive 12 their membership in a protected class discharge when an employer 13 supports constructive discharge. See, fails to remedy a hostile work Thomas v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 Jodell Dodge, No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 FirstService Residential Arizona LLC, 12 Defendant. 13 14 On November 6, 2025, the Court ordered Matthew V. Moosbrugger (“Mr. 15 Moosbrugger”) to appear at a Show Cause Hearing to explain why sanctions should not be 16 imposed on him for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. 30). On November 17 21, 2025, Mr. Moosbrugger appeared in front of this Court. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On July 11, 2025, Defendant submitted a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 20 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was set for July 25th, 21 however, Plaintiff failed to respond. Three days after the deadline, Plaintiff through 22 counsel, Mr. Moosbrugger, filed a Motion for Leave to file an untimely response, as well 23 as Plaintiff’s Response Brief. (Doc. 24). Defendant timely filed a Reply. (Doc. 28). 24 The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, holding that 25 Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (See Doc. 29). During the 26 Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Response Brief, the Court found numerous citation-related 27 deficiencies, which the Court noted in its Order of Dismissal. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff’s Response 28 Brief was replete with misrepresented case holdings, including one cited case that does not 1 exist. (See Doc. 30). Consequently, the Court ordered Mr. Moosbrugger to appear to show 2 cause, if any, why sanctions should not be imposed upon him for violating Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 11. See LRCiv 83.1(f). (Id. at 5). After issuing its Order, the Court found 4 additional citation-related deficiencies not mentioned in its initial Order, as well as multiple 5 citations deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave.1 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states, in relevant part, that “[b]y presenting to 8 the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper … an attorney or unrepresented party 9 certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief … the claims, 10 defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 11(b)(2). 12 A signature on a filing “certifies to the court that the signer has read the document, 13 has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is satisfied that the 14 document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper motive.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991). “[A]ny party 15 who signs a pleading, motion or other paper … [has] an affirmative duty to conduct a 16 reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing[.]” Id. at 551. “[T]he applicable 17 standard is one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Id. If the Court finds an 18 attorney has violated Rule 11(b), the Court “may impose an appropriate sanction” after the 19 Court has provided “notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 11(c)(1); see also Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999) 21 (requiring notice and opportunity to respond before imposing sanctions). 22
23 III. DISCUSSION 24 The Court found nine case citation deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Response Brief, including two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one case citation 25 that does not exist. The case citation deficiencies are summarized as follows: 26
27 1 The Court acknowledges that the citation deficiencies present in Plaintiff’s Motion to 28 Leave do not rise to the level of a Rule 11 violation. The Court will refrain from addressing them in detail. 1 Response Case cited Court’s observations 2 Brief page (as it appears in Plaintiff’s Response number Brief) 3 1 3 In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Case exists. Pincite is incorrect. 4 Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 The cited page addresses direct 5 (2000), the Supreme Court discriminatory age-based emphasized that circumstantial and comments resulting in 6 contextual evidence, including how termination. Rather than facially neutral comments are appearing at p. 151, it appears 7 perceived in light of prior age-related the proposition may be 8 treatment, may support an inference supported by p. 146-148. of unlawful discrimination. 9 2 3 Shelley v. Geren, the Ninth Circuit Case exists. Quoted language 10 held that “ambiguous or indirect” does not exist in the case. Pincite comments, when viewed is incorrect. Rather than 11 collectively, may permit a factfinder appearing at p. 608, it appears 12 to conclude that discrimination the proposition may be occurred. 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir. supported by p. 610-612. 13 2012). 14 3 3 The Ninth Circuit has recognized Case exists. Quoted language that the “severe or pervasive” does not exist in the case. 15 standard can be met by persistent 16 derogatory remarks and patterns of humiliation that interfere with the 17 plaintiff’s ability to perform her job. 18 See, Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 872–74 (9th Cir. 19 2001). 20 4 4 In Gestalt v. City of Gloucester, Case does not exist. 2021 WL 4169431 (D. Mass. 2021), 21 the court denied dismissal where the plaintiff was told she “dressed 22 young” and lacked the gravitas 23 expected of her role. 5 4 Under National R.R. Passenger Case exists. Quote is correct. 24 Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 Pincite is absent, but this issue 25 (2002), a hostile work environment does not constitute grounds for a claim is timely if “an act Rule 11 violation. 26 contributing to the claim occurs 27 within the filing period,” even if the conduct began earlier. 28 1 6 4 See also, Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Case exists. Quoted language Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 893 (9th Cir. does not exist in the case. 2 2005) (hostile acts before and within 3 300-day window are admissible if “sufficiently related to constitute part 4 of the same hostile environment”). 5 7 4 A constructive discharge occurs Case exists. Quoted language is where “a reasonable person in the mostly correct, however, it does 6 employee’s position would have felt not properly attribute the 7 compelled to resign because of internally quoted and adds intolerable and discriminatory “discriminatory.” 8 working conditions.” See, Poland v. 9 Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007. 10 8 5 Courts have repeatedly held that an Case exists. However, Thomas 11 employer’s failure to remedy a does not address protected known hostile environment based on classes’ support for constructive 12 their membership in a protected class discharge when an employer 13 supports constructive discharge. See, fails to remedy a hostile work Thomas v. Douglas, 877 F.2d 1428, environment. Further, the case 14 1434 (9th Cir. 1989). ruled in favor of the employer, 15 finding that the employee was not subjected to harassment that 16 could be considered punishment or retaliation. 17 9 5 Judicial complaints may include Case exists. Quote is mostly 18 claims that are “like or reasonably correct. However, it does not related to the allegations” in the attribute the internally quoted 19 administrative charge. Green v. Los and cited language and omits 20 Angeles County Superintendent of words, but this issue does not Schools, 883 F.2d 1472, 1476 (9th constitute grounds for a Rule 11 21 Cir. 1989). violation. 22 23 At the Hearing, Mr. Moosbrugger stated under oath that he uses an artificial 24 intelligence (“AI”) software called Federally Lawyer, which is an add-on to the enterprise 25 version of ChatGPT. (Tr. Hr’g. 8:25-9:4) Mr. Moosbrugger stated that he uses the software 26 as a research and drafting tool to assist with his caseload. (Id. at 17:1-4). When using the 27 AI software, Mr. Moosbrugger asserts that he generally independently checks any 28 generated cases. (Id. at 17:4-6). However, due to his delay in filing Plaintiff’s Response 1 Brief, Mr. Moosbrugger admitted that he did not independently review any case citations 2 before submitting the brief to the Court. (Id. at 18:11-21). Mr. Moosbrugger admitted that 3 he only attempted to confirm accuracy of the cases by asking ChatGPT “is all legal 4 authority and citation up to date and accurate, meaning is it still good precedent, and are 5 they all real cases?” (Id. at 18:19-19:1). Mr. Moosbrugger stated that since the Court’s 6 Order to Show Cause, he has self-reported his improper use of AI in this matter to the State 7 Bar of Arizona and is reviewing filings of other pending matters to report other citation- 8 related deficiencies, if any. (Id. at 17:11-16). Further, Mr. Moosbrugger admits that, as a 9 solo practitioner, litigating labor-intensive cases with deadlines can be difficult, but he is 10 responsible for any pleadings bearing his signature. (Id. at 22:19-23:17). 11 The imposition of sanctions against parties that submit AI-generated case law is 12 prevalent. Throughout the federal district courts, sanctions under Rule 11 for citations to 13 non-existent case law and misrepresented holdings have included monetary sanctions, CLE 14 sanctions, reasonable attorney fees and costs to opposing counsel, and referral to disciplinary authorities (or a combination thereof). See, e.g., Dehghani v. Castro, 782 15 F.Supp.3d 1051, 1062 (D. N.M. 2025) (affirming the magistrate judge’s decision to impose 16 monetary and CLE sanctions and require the attorney to self-report the incident to all bar 17 associations he is a member of.); see also Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 464- 18 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that a monetary sanction of $5000 on the attorneys and their 19 law firm was sufficient but not more than necessary for deterrence.); see also Wadsworth 20 v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D. Wyo. 2025) (removing the drafting attorney as 21 counsel of record, and imposing a $3,000 sanction on the drafting attorney and a $1,000 22 sanction on the other two attorneys for failing to review the document.); see also Buchanan 23 v. Vuori, Inc., No. 23-CV-01121-NC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (a solo practitioner 24 representing plaintiffs in a class action used six different AI tools to file a motion that 25 contained eight misquoted cases and one non-existent case; the court struck the motion, 26 imposed a $250 sanction, and referred the attorney to the court’s standing committee on 27 professional conduct.) 28 1 The Court recognizes that Mr. Moosbrugger has improperly submitted non-existent 2|| case law and misrepresented holdings. However, the Court finds that, based on the facts in this matter, severe sanctions are not warranted. 4 Mr. Moosbrugger openly and honestly admitted to his improper use of AI, including 5 || the submission of hallucinated citations to this Court. Although Mr. Moosbrugger is a solo 6 || practitioner who does not have other attorneys available for assistance, he understands that 7\|| he is responsible for his filings, cannot rely solely on AI to check his citations, and must 8 || verify them himself. In addition, Mr. Moosbrugger took the initiative to self-report to the 9 || State Bar for his improper use of AI and contends that he is reviewing all other pending 10 || matters. 11 Mr. Moosbrugger’s citation deficient Response Brief did not prejudice Plaintiff, as 12 || the Court found that she could not prevail on the merits of the case. Additionally, Mr. Moosbrugger represented this case on a contingency fee basis and, as a result of the Court’s 14 dismissal, he did not collect any fee from Plaintiff. The Court further finds, under the facts 15|| of this case, the public humiliation in this matter is a sufficient remedy. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court encourages Mr. Moosbrugger to participate in 17 educational seminars focused on the appropriate and potentially hazardous legal 18 applications of AI. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see also LRCiv 83.1(f). 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED finding that no further sanctions should be imposed on Matthew 91 || V- Moosbrugger. 02 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to provide copies of 3 this Order to the State Bar of Arizona Disciplinary Committee. 4A Dated this 8th day of December, 2025.
26 Stephen M. McNamee 97 Senior United States District Judge 28