September v. DMS Flowers, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB (Sept. 19, 2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Sept. 19, 2025
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DMS FLOWERS, LLC, etal., Defendants.United States District Court, E.D. California. | September 19, 2025 | Slip Copy | 2025 WL 2689350Document Detailsstandard Citation:GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et al.,Defendants., No. 1:24-CV-00174-CDB, 2025 WL 2689350 (E.D. Cal.Sept. 19, 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 2689350Search DetailsJurisdiction:CaliforniaDelivery DetailsDate:September 24, 2025 at 3:26 AMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineORDERDISCHARGINGSEPTEMBER 11,2025, ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE(p.1)All Citations (p.2)
GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2689350Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. California.GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,v.DMS FLOWERS,LLC, et al., Defendants.Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-CDB|Filed 09/19/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist.These invalid citations appeared in the original courtopinion and have been preserved as written since theyare part of the official record. Any links to these invalidcitations have been removed.(Doc. 133, 134)ORDER DISCHARGING SEPTEMBER 11, 2025,ORDER TO SHOW CAUSERelevant Background*1 On June 9, 2025, Defendant Teleflora, LLC(“Teleflora”) filed a motion to dismiss the firstamended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Gibralter,LLC (“Gibralter”), and Divinely, Inc. (“Divinely”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 111). On June 23,2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion todismiss. (Doc. 115). On July 3, 2025, Teleflora fileda reply. (Doc. 121). Following review of the parties’filings made in connection with the motion, the Courtdeemed the motion is suitable for disposition withouthearing and oral argument. (Doc. 122) (citing LocalRule 230(g)).On September 11, 2025, the Court ordered counselfor Plaintiffs Laurie Doucet Normandin to show cause(“OSC”) in writing within seven days why sanctionsshould not be imposed, or other disciplinary actionshould not issue. (Doc. 133). The Court noted fromreviewing Plaintiffs’ opposition to Teleflora's motionto dismiss the FAC that Plaintiffs cited to a fictitiouscase—“Innovation Ventures, LLC, v. Pitts, 202 F. Supp.3d 356, 363 (E.D. Mich. 2016)”—in support of theirassertion that both Plaintiffs have standing to bring thisaction as trademark owner and exclusive licensee. Id.(citing (Doc. 115 at 7)). Because the Court was unableto find any record of the Pitts action, and the caseappears to be a hallucinated case generated from theimproper and undisclosed use of artificial intelligence(“AI”), the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to showcause as set forth above. Id. at 3.Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiffs’timely response to the OSC, filed on September17, 2025. (Doc. 134). Counsel represents that hercitation to the Pitts case in Plaintiffs’ oppositionto Teleflora's motion to dismiss was the productof inadvertent error and the correct citation forthe referenced case is Innovation Ventures, LLC v.Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers, Inc., No. C 12–05523WHA, 2013 WL 1007666 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013).Id. at 2. Counsel represents the correct case standsfor the same proposition as argued in the oppositionthat an exclusive licensee has standing to sue fortrademark infringement. Id. Counsel represents thatshe used various research sources, “including sourcesthat incorporate AI[,]” in preparing the opposition. Id.She represents that an inaccurate citation for the secondhalf of the case citation of the case was inadvertentlyincluded and overlooked, for which she apologizesas an unintentional oversight and not presented foran improper purpose, for delay, nor to undermine thejudicial process. Id. at 2-3. Counsel represents thatadditional precautions will be implemented to preventsimilar errors in the future, and requests that sanctionsnot be imposed and the citation be deemed corrected.Id. at 3.Counsel for Plaintiffs’ representation that sheinadvertently included and overlooked the “secondhalf of the case citation” for the fictitious Pittscase understates the situation at bar—in drafting theopposition, counsel included the Pitts case, placing theparties’ names, published reporter, pin cite, year, anddistrict court before signing the opposition and filingit before the Court. To her credit, counsel concedesthat this likely was the result of her use of AI-assistedresearch and drafting tools in drafting her oppositionbrief. As counsel was admonished, under Local Rule180(e), “[n]o attorney admitted to practice before this
GIBRALTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DMS FLOWERS, LLC, et..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Court shall engage in any conduct that degrades orimpugns the integrity of the Court or in any mannerinterferes with the administration of justice.” (Doc.133 at 2) (citing L.R. 180(e)). See United State. v.Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1064 (E.D. Cal. 2025)(“Submitting fictitious cases and quotations to thecourt ‘degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court’and ‘interferes with the administration of justice’ inviolation of Local Rule 180(e), and violates CaliforniaRules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and3.3(a)(2).”) (citation omitted). Counsel's carelessnessis a discredit to the bar and a disservice to her client(see Rules 1.3 & 3.1, Cal. R. Prof. Cond.), andunnecessarily consumes the limited resources of thisCourt in managing its docket.*2 However, based on counsel for Plaintiffs’response to the OSC and candor in admitting tousing various research sources “including sources thatincorporate AI,” representation that her inaccuratecitation was an unintentional oversight from such use,and her representation that she will implement (albeit,unspecified) “precaution to prevent future similarerrors,” the Court finds good cause to discharge theSeptember 11, 2025, OSC (Doc. 133) without theimposition of sanctions. See In re Veritas SoftwareCorp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007).Counsel is admonished to exercise due care in using AItools and resources in the preparation and drafting ofher filings before the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).Conclusion and OrderAccordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, theSeptember 11, 2025, order to show cause (Doc. 133) isDISCHARGED without the imposition of sanctions.IT IS SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2689350End 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