Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., No. CV-25-01823-PHX-DJH (2026)

Case details
Full caption
D. Arizona. Bathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arizona (AZ)
Court
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Bathsheba Nichole Adams, Plaintiff, v. Kiewit Infrastructure West..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1162306Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Arizona.Bathsheba Nichole Adams, Plaintiff,v.Kiewit Infrastructure WestCompany, et al., Defendants.No. CV-25-01823-PHX-DJH|04/29/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Attorneys and Law FirmsBathsheba Nichole Adams, Pro Se, Waddell, AZ, Timothy M.Collier, Vishal C. Gupta, William Andrew Weber, Law Officeof Timothy M Collier PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff.Andrew Bryan Kleiner, Joanna L. Rivers, Husch BlackwellLLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants.ORDER*1 On April 24, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Bathsheba NicholeAdams (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Leave to File RevisedSecond Amended Complaint (Doc. 38). However, uponreview of the Motion, the Court will strike it from the recordas non-compliant with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure.Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1(a) provides:A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading mustattach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as anexhibit to the motion, which must indicate in what respectit differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketingor striking through the text to be deleted and underliningthe text to be added.LRCiv. 15.1(a). Plaintiff's proposed complaint attached to herMotion fails to meet the above requirements. (Doc. 4 at 3(“Any motion or notice that does not comply with the localand federal rules may be stricken by the Court.”)).Additionally, Plaintiff should be aware that she has a duty tomeet and confer with Defendants before filing any motionregarding proposed amendments. (See id.). There is noindication that such meet-and-confer efforts were undertakenhere. Moreover, a complaint is not an appropriate placeto reference legal authority. See, e.g., Williams v. Grannis,2007 WL 1113767, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (“Plaintiffcomplaint should not contain legal arguments, citations tolegal authority, or unnecessary background information.”).Instead, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires that a complaint allegefacts sufficient to show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.Plaintiff has been informed twice now three times that, inproceeding as a pro se plaintiff, she has an obligation tofamiliarize herself with and abide by the Local and FederalRules of Procedure. Failure to do so “may result in sanctionsup to dismissal.” Allen v. Quest Online, LLC, 2011 WL4403674, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2011); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the samerules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).On a related note, Plaintiff's filing contained several troublingerrors. Plaintiff cited “Ellsworth v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 148Ariz. 17, 19 (App. 1985)” (see Doc. 38-1 at 10). However,no such case exists. Instead, there is a case out of Utahregarding whether a plaintiff was bound by an arbitrationagreement. See Ellsworth v. Am. Arb. Ass'n, 148 P.3d 983(Utah 2006). Similarly, no 9th Circuit case named “Aguilarv. ASARCO” exists at 780 F.3d 1101. (See Doc. 38-1 at17–18); see Lary v. Trinity Phys. Fin. & Ins. Services, 780F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2015). These hallucinations allow theCourt to infer that Plaintiff prepared her filing with the use ofgenerative artificial intelligence (“AI”). While the use of sucha tool is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirmthe accuracy of the filing is. Rule 11 requires either a partyor an attorney to sign every pleading, motion, or other paperand provides that this signature constitutes a certificate thatthe signer has read the document and verified its accuracy. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 11. This duty includes ensuring that all citationsare accurate as well as any quoted portions or descriptions ofthe referenced case. Plaintiff's pro se status does not relieveher of this requirement. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. JamesD Noland, Jr., 2026 WL 879369, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2026).
Bathsheba Nichole Adams, Plaintiff, v. Kiewit Infrastructure West..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 Plaintiff is now on notice that the use of hallucinatedcases or the filing of documents with related inaccuracieswill result in sanctions. Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust,2025 WL 2928933, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2025) (“[W]hether [theplaintiff] used artificial intelligence or simply imagined thecases himself, filing documents that contain such cases resultsin confusion and unnecessary work for opposing parties andthe court. In the future, filing documents with fictitious caseswill subject [the plaintiff] to sanctions under Rule 11.”).Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave toFile Revised Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) isSTRICKEN from the record.Dated this 29th day of April, 2026.Honorable Diane J. HumetewaUnited States District JudgeAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1162306End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access