Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Elias Cabrera sued Tim Shorter and other defendants in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under case number 2:26-cv-11097-MWC-RAO. On November 4, 2026, Cabrera filed a motion asking the court to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, docketed as Docket No. 11. The motion was supported by a declaration of Brendan J. Burton with exhibits docketed at Docket No. 11-1.
The presiding judge's Civil Standing Order requires that every motion, pleading, or other paper attach a separate declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, disclosing the use or non-use of generative artificial intelligence tools such as Claude, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Board. The preparer must certify either that no portion of the filing was drafted by AI or that AI was used and the filer reviewed the source material and verified the generated content is accurate and complies with Rule 11 obligations, and the declaration must identify which portions, if any, incorporate generative AI outputs. The standing order also requires that each declaration, exhibit, or other attachment be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the main docket entry with a description of the attachment.
The standing order expressly warns that failure to submit a declaration attesting to the use or non-use of AI may result in the court striking the filing. On November 5, 2026, the court issued an order, docketed as Document 12, acting on its own motion rather than on any request by the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
Acting on its own motion, the court struck Cabrera's motion to remand for failure to comply with the Civil Standing Order. The court explained that the motion failed to attach an accompanying declaration attesting to the use or non-use of AI in the filing, and that the court requires such a declaration before it will consider the merits of the motion. The court also found the motion failed to comply with the standing order's separate-docketing requirement, pointing to Docket No. 11-1's failure to appropriately label and separately docket the exhibits to the Burton declaration.
The court grounded its authority in the considerable latitude district courts have to manage motion practice and enforce local rules that place parameters on briefing, citing the Ninth Circuit's decisions in Christian v. Mattel, Inc. and Bias v. Moynihan, as well as several district court decisions enforcing standing orders. The order does not reach the merits of remand. Instead, the court expressly permitted Cabrera to refile a conforming motion before his deadline to file a motion to remand, making the strike a procedural enforcement measure rather than a substantive ruling on removal jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- The court struck the plaintiff's motion to remand because it lacked the standing order's required declaration disclosing the use or non-use of generative AI in preparing the filing.
- The court will not consider the merits of any motion until the filer submits the AI-use declaration, which must be signed under penalty of perjury and identify any portions of the filing that incorporate generative AI outputs.
- The motion also violated the requirement that declarations, exhibits, and other attachments be separately docketed with descriptive labels, as the exhibits to the Burton declaration were not appropriately labeled or separately docketed.
- The strike is without prejudice in practical effect: the plaintiff may refile a conforming motion to remand before his remand deadline.
- The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing district courts' considerable latitude to manage motion practice and enforce local briefing rules, including judge-specific standing orders.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the growing enforcement of judicial standing orders requiring disclosure of generative AI use in court filings. It shows that noncompliance carries real consequences—striking of the filing—even where the underlying motion raises a significant procedural question like remand to state court, and even when the court acts on its own motion without a request from the opposing party.
Practitioners in the Central District of California, and before judges with similar standing orders elsewhere, should treat AI-use declarations and separate-docketing rules as mandatory prerequisites to merits consideration. The decision also confirms that courts will cite their case-management authority under Ninth Circuit law to enforce these requirements, while typically allowing parties to cure the defect by refiling before the applicable deadline.