Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This order arose in Alyssa Mercante’s action against Jeff Tarzia in the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:24-CV-08471 (MKB). In an October 2, 2026 Memorandum and Order, the court denied Mercante’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi’s refusal to issue an order to show cause concerning Tarzia’s use of generative artificial intelligence in filings. The earlier decision nevertheless found that defense counsel violated Rule 11 by citing A.M. v. City of New York with an incorrect database identifier and by admitting that he used AI to identify cases without checking the propositions and citations. The court affirmed the decision not to impose sanctions while stating that counsel’s citations were unacceptable.
On October 5, Tarzia sought correction of the statements that A.M. v. City of New York did not exist and was a fabricated AI hallucination, together with reconsideration of the Rule 11 determination insofar as it rested on that citation. Mercante opposed the request, arguing that it lacked the notice of motion and memorandum required by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and questioning the court’s jurisdiction after it ordered transfer to the Southern District of California. The court treated the timely but procedurally deficient filing as proper for this application to resolve the case efficiently. It also explained that it retained jurisdiction because the clerk had not yet physically transferred the case.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the requested factual correction in part. It had received A.M. v. City of New York, 21-CV-5191, 2022 WL 20472225 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2022), as Exhibit C to Tarzia’s opposition to the order-to-show-cause request. Treating that decision as overlooked data, the court corrected its October 2 statements describing the correctly identified decision as nonexistent, fictitious, fabricated, or an AI hallucination. It also corrected the statement that Tarzia did not dispute that characterization. The court did not alter statements about the incorrectly identified decision, and it emphasized that Tarzia’s original filing used the wrong Westlaw identifier, 2022 WL 17543173, and that the court was not required to track down incorrectly cited authorities.
The court denied reconsideration of the Rule 11 determination. Applying the strict reconsideration standard, it explained that the violation did not depend solely on the belief that A.M. was hallucinated. It also rested on counsel’s admissions that he used AI to identify cases without verifying their propositions and citations and had not claimed to review the decisions before filing. Relying on Rule 11’s reasonable-inquiry duty and Park v. Kim’s requirement that attorneys read and confirm the existence and validity of relied-upon authorities, the court concluded that the corrections could not reasonably be expected to change its conclusion. Its final order corrected the specified statements, otherwise denied the reconsideration letter, directed the clerk to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, and waived Local Rule 83.1’s seven-day stay because the parties consented to transfer.
Key Takeaways
- A genuine decision can still be cited incorrectly, and producing the actual decision may justify correcting a court’s factual description without eliminating a separate Rule 11 violation.
- The Rule 11 ruling rested independently on counsel’s admissions that he used AI to locate cases and filed citations without reviewing the decisions or checking their accuracy.
- The court treated the reconsideration request as procedurally deficient under Local Civil Rule 6.3 but accepted it for this application to resolve the matter efficiently.
- Because physical transfer had not occurred, the Eastern District of New York retained jurisdiction to make modest corrections to its prior order.
- The court directed transfer to the Southern District of California and waived the usual seven-day stay in light of the parties’ consent.
Why It Matters
The order separates the accuracy of a court’s description of a particular authority from the professional duty underlying a Rule 11 finding. Correcting the hallucination finding did not erase counsel’s admitted failure to read and verify authorities before filing. The decision therefore explains why the corrected information did not meet reconsideration’s requirement that overlooked matter be reasonably expected to alter the court’s conclusion.
It also addresses the procedural transition between districts: an order directing transfer did not itself divest the issuing court of jurisdiction before physical transfer. The court used that continuing jurisdiction for modest corrections, then directed the clerk to complete the consented transfer. The order did not newly impose sanctions; it left intact the earlier affirmance of the magistrate judge’s discretionary refusal to sanction defense counsel.