Crossing v. County of Wright, No. 86-CV-23-2147 (May 29, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Delano Crossing v. County of Wright
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
May 29, 2025
Disposition
Reversed
Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of..., 2025 WL 1539250... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 1539250 (Minn.Tax Regular Div.)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.Minnesota Tax Court, Regular Division,County of Wright.Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner,v.County of Wright, Respondent.Court File No.: 86-CV-23-2147|FILED: May 29, 2025This matter came before the Honorable Jane N.Bowman, Chief Judge, the Honorable Bradford S.Delapena, and the Honorable Beverly J. Luther Quast,Judges of the Minnesota Tax Court, en banc, on theCourt's Order to Show Cause.Attorneys and Law FirmsLarry D. Martin, L.D. Martin Law Office, representsPetitioner Delano Crossing 2016, LLC.Rachel E. Pence,1 Caroline Bachun, Brian A. Lutes,and Elizabeth M. Larson, Wright County Attorney'sOffice, represent Respondent Wright County.ORDER ON SANCTIONS*1 In support of a motion for summary judgment,which the court denies in a concurrent order, theCounty submitted a brief that included five casecitations generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI); noneof the five citations referred to an actual judicialdecision. Indeed, much of the County's brief appearedto be written by AI. We subsequently ordered WrightCounty to show cause why it should not be sanctionedand why Ms. Pence, who signed and filed the brief,should not be reported to the Minnesota LawyersProfessional Responsibility Board. For the reasonsbelow, although we believe Ms. Pence's conductviolated Rule 11, we decline to order sanctions.Additionally, we refer this matter to the MinnesotaLawyers Professional Responsibility Board for furtherreview.FINDINGS OF FACT1. The five case citations contained in Wright County'smemorandum in support of its motion for summaryjudgment were generated by artificial intelligence;the fake case citations do not refer to actual judicialdecisions.2. Wright County, by way of Ms. Pence, included fiveAI-generated case citations in a brief that was servedon opposing counsel and filed with the tax court.CONCLUSION OF LAW1. Including AI-generated case citations in a legalbrief served and filed with the tax court, violated Rule11.02(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.IT IS SO ORDERED.BY THE COURT:Jane N. Bowman, Chief Judge MINNESOTA TAXCOURTBradford S. Delapena, Judge MINNESOTA TAXCOURTBeverly J. Luther Quast, Judge MINNESOTA TAXCOURTMEMORANDUMI. Factual and Procedural BackgroundIn February 2025, Wright County filed a motion forsummary judgment,2 which the court denies on themerits in a concurrent order.3 Before the scheduledhearing on the County's motion, the court ascertainedthat the County's supporting memorandum containedfive fake case citations, which we believed werehallucinated by AI. Given the unprecedented scenariofor this court, we heard the matter en banc. Minn. Stat.§ 271.04, subd. 1 (2024) (allowing the court to hear amatter “before the entire Tax Court”).4 During the enbanc motion hearing, and in a subsequent Affidavit, the
Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of..., 2025 WL 1539250... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2County acknowledged that the cited authorities do notexist and that much of the County's brief was draftedby AI.5After the hearing, we filed an Order to Show Causerequiring the County to describe in detail how the briefcame to be; to show cause why the County should notbe sanctioned for having submitted a brief containingfake case citations; and to show cause why the courtshould not refer Ms. Pence's use of fake case citationsto the Minnesota Lawyer's Professional ResponsibilityBoard.6*2 In response, the court received two affidavits.First, Brian A. Lutes, Wright County Attorney,attested, in relevant part: (1) that Wright County hasnot submitted any other brief to the tax court containingfake case citations; and (2) that Ms. Pence providedassurances to County Attorney Lutes that she had notsubmitted any other brief containing fake case citationsto any other court.7Second, Rachel Pence, Assistant Wright CountyAttorney, submitted an affidavit generally describingthe procedural background of this matter, herprocess in drafting the summary judgment brief,and reasons why the court should not sanctionthe County nor refer this matter to the MinnesotaLawyers Professional Responsibility Board.8 Ms.Pence generally characterized her filing of a briefcontaining AI-hallucinated case citations as a mistake,stating: “I believe I inadvertently filed a draft Motionthat was never intended to be the final product. I didnot intend to file an AI-generated pleading; however,I have been unable to locate any other documentscontaining my research.”9Ms. Pence further averred that she did not realize herbrief contained fake case citations until approximately6:48 p.m. the night before the motion hearing,prompting Ms. Pence to conclude that the best time todeal with the situation was at the impending hearing.10Ms. Pence further attested that although the casecitations in her brief were fake, “the legal contentionsin the motion are warranted by existing law as cited[orally during the hearing].”11 Ms. Pence generallyattested, in other words, that although she “erroneouslyfiled a document with hallucinated cases,” the County'sarguments were otherwise legally sound. Ms. Penceadded that she has taken several remedial measures toensure this does not happen again, and she understands“the seriousness of [her] mistake.”12II. AnalysisFor the following reasons, although we find Ms.Pence's conduct violated Minnesota Rule of CivilProcedure 11.02(b), we decline to order sanctions inthis matter.A. Ms. Pence's Conduct Violated Rule 11Rule 11.02 states that, “by presenting to the court ...a pleading, written motion, or other document,” anattorney certifies “to the best of [their] knowledge,information, and belief, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances” that “the claims,defenses, and other legal contentions therein arewarranted by existing law....” Minn. R. Civ. P.11.02(b); In re Est. of Flatgard, 14 N.W.3d 305,313 (Minn. App. 2024), review denied (Mar. 18,2025) (noting when an attorney presents a courtwith pleadings, the attorney certifies that the claimsare “supported by existing law,” among otherthings). “Thus, rule 11 prescribes an affirmativeduty on counsel to investigate the factual and legalunderpinnings of a pleading.” Id. (emphasis added);see also Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 142(Minn. 1990). When reviewing conduct for Rule 11violations, courts apply an objective standard. AlbanyReady Mix, Inc. v. Reinke, 2024 WL 5116624, at *4(Minn. App. Dec. 16, 2024) (citing Peterson v. Hinz,605 N.W.2d 414, 417 (Minn. App. 2000) (cleaned up).*3 We conclude that the inclusion of citations tonon-existing cases (or other legal authorities) is aviolation of Rule 11.02(b), as fake case citations cannotsupport any legal claim. Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(b)(when signing pleadings, an attorney certifies “theclaims, defenses, and other legal contentions thereinare warranted by existing law.”). See Dehghani v.Castro, No. 2:25-CV-0052, 2025 WL 988009, at *4(D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2025), aff'd, No. 2:25-CV-0052,2025 WL 1361765 (D.N.M. May 9, 2025) (findinga Rule 11 violation for, in part, citing to non-existent case law because the citations “do[ ] notsupport [the] stated proposition”); see also Ramirezv. Humala, No. 24-CV-242, 2025 WL 1384161, at
Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of..., 2025 WL 1539250... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3*1 (E.D.N.Y May 13, 2025) (listing multiple districtcourt decisions finding “submission of nonexistentcase citations in filings to the court” as amounting to aRule 11 violation). Further, using fake case citations isinherently misleading, as the signing attorney inducesreaders to believe that their legal contentions aresupported by existing law. See Matthew Garner v.Kadince, Inc., No. 20250188-CA, 2025 WL 1481740,at *2 (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025) (“A fake opinionis not ‘existing law’ that can support a party's legalcontention.”) (citation omitted). In other words, froman objective point of view, the inclusion of fakecase citations creates sham legal authority, therebyviolating Rule 11. See Versant Funding LLC v. TerasBreakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises, LLC, No.17-CV-81140, 2025 WL 1440351, *4 (S.D. Fla.May 20, 2025) (finding “sanctions are appropriateunder Rule 11... because both attorneys presented tothe court a written response without conducting areasonable inquiry.”); see also Keaau DevelopmentPartnership LLC, v Patrick John Lawrence, et al, No.CAAP-24-0000494, 2025 WL 1366320, at *2 (Haw.Ct. App. May 19, 2025) (similar).We find no merit in Ms. Pence's defense that allof the County's legal claims can be supported bygenuine controlling precedent (that Ms. Pence orallyoffered to the court during the hearing).13 As an initialmatter, we conclude that using fake case citations,particularly while knowing that AI can generatefictitious citations,14 is a Rule 11 violation, becausethe rule imposes an affirmative duty to investigatethe “legal underpinnings of a pleading.” Flatgard, 14N.W.3d at 313; see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(b)(requiring attorneys signing pleadings to certify that“the claims, defenses, and other legal contentionstherein are warranted by existing law”).In any event, the County's substitute cases donot support the legal contentions asserted in itsbrief.15 First, the County demonstrated a fundamentalmisunderstanding of how and when a taxpayer cansatisfy its initial burden to overcome the prima facievalidity of the assessment.16 Second, Ms. Pence didnot cite genuine precedent in support of her argumentthat courts may grant summary judgment against aparty for missing two procedural deadlines.17 TheCounty's brief stated, however, that “[c]ourts haveheld that failure to comply with deadlines or courtorders can justify the granting of summary judgmentin favor of the opposing party.”18 This sweepinglegal argument—as applied to the facts and proceduralposture of this case—is wildly misplaced. Dismissalfor procedural misconduct is granted only in the mostegregious circumstances. See Henke v. Dunham, 450N.W.2d 595, 598 (Minn. App. 1990) (reversing adistrict court's dismissal for failure to timely identifyan expert and provide discovery responses, stating “werecognize that procedural rules should be obeyed, [but]the trial court's dismissal of [plaintiffs’] case seems tobe an unwarranted punishment.”), Mark L. v. Comm'rof Revenue, 2020 WL 2478861, *3-4 (Minn. T.C.May 7, 2020) (exclusion was the proper remedy forlate-filed exhibits), and Allina Health Sys. v. Cnty. ofWashington, 2021 WL 3040976, at *5 (Minn. T.C. July13, 2021) (holding that “[u]nder these most compellingcircumstances,” exclusion of testimony was the properremedy). We find no case law supporting dismissal ofa case for the sort of isolated procedural defaults thatoccurred in the current matter.19*4 In sum, we conclude that using AI to generatea brief with fake case citations, and then filing thatbrief without satisfying Rule 11's affirmative duty toinvestigate the legal underpinnings of the County'slegal arguments,20 is a violation of Rule 11. Callingthe inclusion of fake case citations a “mistake” in thismatter is not objectively reasonable.21B. SanctionsIf a court determines Rule 11 has been violated, “afternotice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, ... thecourt may, subject to [certain conditions], impose anappropriate sanction upon the attorney[ ], ... for theviolation.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03. Sanctions “imposedfor violation of this rule shall be limited to what issufficient to deter repetition of such conduct[.]” Minn.R. Civ. P. 11.03(b) (also noting that monetary sanctionsare not available for a Rule 11.02(b) violation). Courtsare required to make factual findings as to improperconduct and explain the basis for any sanction. Minn.R. Civ. P. 11.03(c); In re the Claims for No-FaultBenefits Against Progressive Ins. Co., 720 N.W.2d 865,875 (Minn. App. 2006).
Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of..., 2025 WL 1539250... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4We believe one appropriate sanction here would be tosummarily deny the County's motion. If an attorneysubmits to this court legal arguments using fake legalauthority, we generally will deny the motion withoutexpending the time and resources necessary to analyzethose arguments. As described in our concurrent Orderdenying the County's motion, however, we concludedthat the County's arguments were so clearly incorrectthat it was preferable to deny them on the merits.22In lieu of summarily denying the County's motion asa sanction, we believe that this Order, in conjunctionwith the Order to Show Cause, sufficiently deters Ms.Pence from relying solely on AI for case citations orlegal conclusions in the future. Thus, we decline toorder any further sanctions in this matter.23III. Referral Concerning Professional Conduct*5 “Competent representation requires the legalknowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparationreasonably necessary for the representation.” Minn.Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.1. In addition, a lawyer“shall not knowingly ... make a false statement offact or law to a tribunal ...”). Id. at r. 3.3(a)(1).Wright County's brief in this matter raises questions oftruthfulness and candor to the court.We are mindful of our responsibility as judges. “Ajudge having knowledge that a lawyer has committeda violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct thatraises a substantial question regarding the lawyer'shonesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in otherrespects shall inform the appropriate authority.” Minn.Code of Jud. Conduct r. 2.15(B) (emphasis added);see also Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 25-576,2025 WL 1085695, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2025)(ordering the clerk of court to send its memorandum tothe state bar under similar circumstances).We believe the submission of an AI-generated brief,apparently unreviewed, as evidenced by inclusion ofentirely fake case citations, reasonably raises questionsas to a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, and/or fitnessas a lawyer. Thus, as we are obligated to inform theauthority under our governing rule, we will send tothe Minnesota Lawyer's Professional ResponsibilityBoard: (1) Wright County's brief in support of itsmotion to dismiss, (2) the transcript of the April 11,2025 hearing, (3) this court's Order to Show Cause, (4)Brian Lutes's Affidavit, (5) Rachel Pence's Affidavit,(6) the court's Order Denying the County's Motion, and(7) this Order on Sanctions. The Board will respond asit sees fit.All Citations2025 WL 1539250Footnotes1Ms. Pence's affidavit references “previously representing the County” in this matter, but no formal Notice ofWithdrawal has been filed. Affidavit of Rachel Pence (“Pence Aff.”) 1 (signed Apr. 25, 2025).2Not. Mot. & Mot. SJ (filed Feb. 4, 2025). The same notice of motion and motion was refiled, updated with aspecific hearing date and time, on February 6, 2025. Not. Mot. & Mot. SJ (filed Feb. 6, 2025).3Order Denying Summ. J. (May 27, 2025).4Order En Banc Consideration (Apr. 10, 2025).5Tr. 5, 7-8 (Apr. 11, 2025); Pence Aff. ¶¶ 16-20.6Order to Show Cause (Apr. 18, 2025).7Affidavit of Brian A. Lutes (signed Apr. 24, 2025).8Pence Aff.9Pence Aff. 19.
Delano Crossing 2016, LLC, Petitioner, v. County of..., 2025 WL 1539250... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.510Pence Aff. 24-25 (as opposed to filing a document pointing out the issue prior to the hearing).11Pence Aff. 27. During the hearing, Ms. Pence offered several case citations to real cases; she argued thecase citations offered at the hearing support the legal propositions in her brief. Tr. 5-6.12Pence Aff. ¶¶ 36-41.13Tr. 5; Pence Aff. 27.14Pence Aff. 18.15Order Denying Summ. J.16Order Denying Summ. J..17See Tr 5-6; Pence Aff. 27. Ms. Pence asserts the legal contentions are correct, but none of the authorityshe provided pertain to summary judgment.18Not. Mot. & Mot. Summ. Judgment 4.19Not. Mot. & Mot. Summ. Judgment 3-4. Ms. Pence's AI-generated brief confused legal standards. The motionwas one for Summary Judgment, see Minn. R. Civ. P 56, but the brief relied on the standard in Rule 41,id. at 41 (Dismissal of Actions). Id. This court did not identify any authority granting summary judgment forprocedural deficiencies such as here.20See Pence Aff. 17 (Ms. Pence notes she updated the brief to correct a statutory citation, which “furthersupports the conclusion that [she] intended for the document to reflect [her] intendent judgment andresearch.” But, the brief contains no statutory citations).21A true mistake might be using AI to draft a brief which included fake case citations, replacing those fake casecitations with accurate case citations in a final draft, but accidentally filing the first draft brief. Here, Ms. Penceclaims she “inadvertently filed a draft Motion that was never intended to be the final product. I did not intendto file an AI-generated pleading; however, I have been unable to locate any other documents containing myresearch.” Pence Aff. 19. We do not find credible the insinuation that another, accurate motion documentexists. Although Ms. Pence states she did not “intend[ ]” to file a brief with fake case citations, she failed inher obligation to read the pleading for accuracy prior to filing; if she did read it, she failed to identify that herbrief consisted of entirely fake case citations. If she did realize the brief contained fake case citations, shefailed to replace them with real citations accurately reflecting the current state of the law.22Order Denying Summ. J.23Of course, this conclusion is based on the events of this case. The court emphasizes its ability to ordersanctions if another attorney or self-represented litigant presents the court with fictitious case citations.End of Document© 2025 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