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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE v. IMPOSED OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY 14 ACTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE AGAINST DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et al., COUNSEL LAURIE DOUCE NORMANDIN Defendants. (Doc. 115) 7-DAY DEADLINE 18 Relevant Background 19 On June 9, 2025, Defendant Teleflora, LLC (“Teleflora”) filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC (“Gibralter”), and Divinely, Inc. (“Divinely”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 111). On June 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an 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 deemed the motion is suitable for disposition without hearing and oral argument. (Doc. 122) (citing 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 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 cited in Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss but was unable to find any record despite the Court’s extensive research efforts on both Westlaw and LEXIS. No search results matched either the parties to the Pitts action, the purportedly published citation number, the district court, or the year. It appears this case does not exist, is fictitious, and, as the Court suspects, is a hallucinated case which Plaintiffs have cited to and generated from the improper and undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (“AI”). The markings of the fictitious case indicate Plaintiffs’ citation 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 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 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 of the Bar of this Court, and any attorney permitted to practice in this Court under (b), shall become familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and court decisions applicable thereto, which are hereby adopted as standards of professional conduct in this Court. In the absence of an applicable standard therein, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association may be considered guidance. No attorney admitted to practice before this Court shall engage in any conduct that degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court or in any manner interferes with the administration of justice.” L.R. 180(e).

24 Local Rule 184(a) provides: “Discipline. In the event any attorney subject to these Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate | Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court before which the | 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 | Doucet Normandin. By signing the brief, counsel represented that it was not being presented for || any improper purpose, including to cause unnecessary delay, and that all legal contentions set forth | therein are warranted by existing law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). By signing a legal brief that cites | 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 || cause in writing within seven (7) days why sanctions should not be imposed or other disciplinary | action should not issue in light of the suspected improper and undisclosed use of AI in citing to a | 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 | Normandin, SHALL show cause in writing within seven (7) days from the entry of this order why | sanctions should not be imposed or other disciplinary action should not issue in light of Counsel’s | suspected improper and undisclosed use of AI in citing to a hallucinated case in Plaintiffs’ | opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss.

18 Failure to comply with this order to show cause will result in the imposition of | sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action.

20 | IT IS SOORDERED. | Dated: _ September 11, 2025 | hr 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE