Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laila Farhat is the plaintiff and Cutera, Inc. is the defendant in a civil action pending in the Northern District of California, Case No. 26-cv-05674-TSH. On September 29, 2026, Cutera filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17). The order does not describe the underlying claims, and the court did not rule on the motion.
On reviewing the motion, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson reported that the court had been unable to locate certain cases cited in it. The order deliberately does not name them, explaining that doing so could inadvertently amplify the problem. The court said these apparent inaccuracies raised a concern that the filing contains fabricated or unreliable legal authorities, possibly because generative artificial intelligence was used in preparing it. That is a stated concern, not a finding that any citation is fabricated or that AI was in fact used.
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lnu v. Blanche, 177 F.4th 1014 (9th Cir. 2026), which distinguishes fabrications (cases or quotations that do not exist) from inaccuracies (real authorities that do not support the stated proposition). As the order reads Lnu, using generative AI is not itself the wrong; the procedural and ethical rules are violated at the point of signing and filing. The order also cites Oneto v. Watson, 808 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2025), for counsel's duty to independently verify AI-generated content.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a sanctions ruling. The court directed counsel for Cutera to file a declaration by October 29, 2026. The declaration must (1) identify, by page and line with the language quoted verbatim, each statement, quotation, citation or representation counsel has determined, or has reason to believe, is inaccurate, fabricated, materially misleading, unsupported or otherwise in need of correction; (2) explain how each item came to be in the filing and whether generative AI or another automated research or drafting tool was used; (3) describe the verification steps taken before filing; and (4) supply corrections with accurate citations and pinpoint references, and identify any other portion of the filing needing correction. The declaration must rest on the declarant's personal review of the cited authorities.
The order explains the standard the court will apply. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), a signature certifies that legal contentions are warranted after reasonable inquiry, and, per Lnu, the signer must read the cited authorities to confirm they are real, properly attributed and accurately represented. Delegating research or drafting to another attorney, employee, contractor or tool does not discharge that duty, and counsel must read and reason, not merely confirm that a case exists. An attorney who learns of a fabricated authority should promptly alert the court and opposing counsel and disclose its source; substituting a valid citation without disclosing the original error's source may itself implicate candor.
Counsel was told the response must be complete and candid. Concealment, an unsupported characterization of fabricated citations as typographical or copy-and-paste errors, or an incomplete account of AI's role may independently aggravate the conduct, while prompt disclosure may bear on the appropriate response. Failure to comply may result in sanctions or remedial measures, including striking part or all of the filing, disregarding unsupported arguments, monetary sanctions where authorized, filing restrictions where legally appropriate, or referral to disciplinary authorities. No sanction has been imposed.
Key Takeaways
- The order requests an explanation and makes no finding of misconduct; the court reported only that it could not locate certain cited cases.
- Under the order's reading of Lnu, the violation occurs at signing and filing, so it generally does not matter whether a bad citation came from an AI tool or from the attorney.
- Counsel cannot satisfy the verification duty by delegating citation checking to subordinates or tools; the signer must personally read the authorities.
- Counsel who discovers an error should promptly disclose the error and its source rather than simply swap in a valid citation.
- The order does not rule on the motion to dismiss.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Northern District of California magistrate judge is applying Lnu: asking for a structured, personally verified account before deciding whether any remedy is warranted. Its four-part declaration may indicate what courts expect from counsel facing suspected citation problems.
Much remains open: whether any cited case is actually nonexistent or misdescribed, whether AI was used, what the declaration will say, and whether the court will impose any remedy. As a single trial-level order, it is not binding precedent; its force comes from the Ninth Circuit authority it applies.