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 DISCHARGING SEPTEMBER 11, 2025, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 (Doc. 133, 134) DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Relevant Background 18 On June 9, 2025, Defendant Teleflora, LLC (“Teleflora”) filed a motion to dismiss the first 19 amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Gibralter, LLC (“Gibralter”), and Divinely, Inc. 20 (“Divinely”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 111). On June 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an 21 opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 115). On July 3, 2025, Teleflora filed a reply. (Doc. 22 121). Following review of the parties’ filings made in connection with the motion, the Court 23 deemed the motion is suitable for disposition without hearing and oral argument. (Doc. 122) (citing 24 Local Rule 230(g)). 25 On September 11, 2025, the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs Laurie Doucet Normandin 26 to show cause (“OSC”) in writing within seven days why sanctions should not be imposed, or other 27 disciplinary action should not issue. (Doc. 133). The Court noted from reviewing Plaintiffs’ opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss the FAC that Plaintiffs cited to a fictitious case— 1 “Innovation Ventures, LLC, v. Pitts,

(E.D. Mich. 2016)”—in support of 2 their assertion that both Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as trademark owner and 3 exclusive licensee.

(citing (Doc. 115 at 7)). Because the Court was unable to find any record 4 of the Pitts action, and the case appears to be a hallucinated case generated from the improper and 5 undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (“AI”), the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to show 6 cause as set forth above. Id. at 3. 7 Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiffs’ timely response to the OSC, filed on 8 September 17, 2025. (Doc. 134). Counsel represents that her citation to the Pitts case in Plaintiffs’ 9 opposition to Teleflora’s motion to dismiss was the product of inadvertent error and the correct 10 citation for the referenced case is Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 11 No. C 12–05523 WHA,

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013). Id. at 2. Counsel represents 12 the correct case stands for the same proposition as argued in the opposition that an exclusive 13 licensee has standing to sue for trademark infringement. Id. Counsel represents that she used 14 various research sources, “including sources that incorporate AI[,]” in preparing the opposition. Id. 15 She represents that an inaccurate citation for the second half of the case citation of the case was 16 inadvertently included and overlooked, for which she apologizes as an unintentional oversight and 17 not presented for an improper purpose, for delay, nor to undermine the judicial process. Id. at 2-3. 18 Counsel represents that additional precautions will be implemented to prevent similar errors in the 19 future, and requests that sanctions not be imposed and the citation be deemed corrected. Id. at 3. 20 Counsel for Plaintiffs’ representation that she inadvertently included and overlooked the 21 “second half of the case citation” for the fictitious Pitts case understates the situation at bar—in 22 drafting the opposition, counsel included the Pitts case, placing the parties’ names, published 23 reporter, pin cite, year, and district court before signing the opposition and filing it before the Court. 24 To her credit, counsel concedes that this likely was the result of her use of AI-assisted research and 25 drafting tools in drafting her opposition brief. As counsel was admonished, under Local Rule 26 180(e), “[n]o attorney admitted to practice before this Court shall engage in any conduct that 27 degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court or in any manner interferes with the administration 1 | 1064 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (“Submitting fictitious cases and quotations to the court ‘degrades or 2 | impugns the integrity of the Court’ and ‘interferes with the administration of justice’ in violation 3 | of Local Rule 180(e), and violates California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), 4 and 3.3(a)(2).”) (citation omitted). Counsel’s carelessness is a discredit to the bar and a disservice 5 | to her client (see Rules 1.3 & 3.1, Cal. R. Prof. Cond.), and unnecessarily consumes the limited 6 | resources of this Court in managing its docket. 7 However, based on counsel for Plaintiffs’ response to the OSC and candor in admitting to 8 | using various research sources “including sources that incorporate AI,” representation that her 9 | inaccurate citation was an unintentional oversight from such use, and her representation that she 10 | will implement (albeit, unspecified) “precaution to prevent future similar errors,” the Court finds 11 | good cause to discharge the September 11, 2025, OSC (Doc. 133) without the imposition of 12 | sanctions. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2007). Counsel 13 || is admonished to exercise due care in using AI tools and resources in the preparation and drafting 14 | of her filings before the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the September 11, 2025, order to show cause 17 | (Doc. 133) is DISCHARGED without the imposition of sanctions. 18 | IT IS SOORDERED. 19 Dated: _ September 19, 2025 | ) Ww v RY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28