Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc. (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Douglas A. LEE v. R&R HOME CARE, INC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
Susie Morgan (J.) (unanimous Court)
Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2481375Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.Douglas A. LEE, et al., Plaintiffsv.R&R HOME CARE, INC., et al., DefendantsCIVIL ACTION NO. 24-836|Signed August 28, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsDavid C. Pellegrin, Pellegrin Firm, LLC, Metairie, LA, forPlaintiffs.Mark Edward Van Horn, Alvin John Herbert III, Perry RogerStaub, Jr., Taggart Morton, LLC, New Orleans, LA, forDefendants.SECTION: “E” (1)ORDER AND REASONSSUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE*1 The Court ordered David C. Pellegrin, counsel forPlaintiffs Douglas Lee, II and Ashlynn Estay (collectively,“Plaintiffs”), to appear to show cause as to why he shouldnot be sanctioned for his failure to comply with FederalRule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2). Specifically, Mr. Pellegrinsigned and filed a memorandum in opposition1 to a motion todismiss2 filed by Defendants Medical Brokers Management,Inc., R&R Home Care, Inc., and Jay Weil, III (collectively,“Defendants”), without verifying the accuracy of a quotationand the citation of a case contained in the memorandum. Mr.Pellegrin appeared before the Court on Wednesday, August27, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.3BACKGROUNDOn March 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion todismiss.4 On May 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an oppositionto Defendants’ motion to dismiss.5 In reviewing thatopposition, the Court identified a suspicious citation and asuspicious quote.The suspicious citation is Mr. Pellegrin's citation to RomanCatholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans v. LouisianaHealth Serv. & Indem. Co., No. 20-1361, 2021 WL 1080684,at *10 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 2021). Mr. Pellegrin cited RomanCatholic Church for the proposition that “when corporateentities are so interrelated that they effectively operate asone, alter-ego liability is appropriate to prevent injustice.”6However, the Court's research did not reveal any casecaptioned Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of NewOrleans v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co. In ourcourt, the citation “20-1361” corresponds to Urbina v.South Building Services, LLC, et al.,7 not Roman CatholicChurch. Likewise, the Westlaw citation “2021 WL 1080684”corresponds to United States v. Bacon,8 not Roman CatholicChurch. Neither Urbina nor Bacon discusses when it isappropriate to impose alter-ego liability.The suspicious quotation is the statement Mr. Pellegrinattributed to Hermann Hospital v. MEBA Medical & BenefitsPlan.9 Specifically, he cited Hermann for the proposition that“[a] fiduciary has a duty not only to inform a beneficiary ofnew and relevant information as it arises, but also to advisehim of material facts affecting his interest in the plan.”10Although Hermann is a published opinion of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,11 the quoted languagedoes not appear in Hermann or in any other case the Courthas been able to locate.On July 28, 2025, the Court issued an order setting oralargument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and directedMr. Pellegrin to be prepared to discuss the source of thesuspicious citation and suspicious quotation.12 On August 4,2025, the Court held oral argument on Defendants’ Motionto Dismiss.13 At the oral argument, Mr. Pellegrin made anappearance for Plaintiffs.14 After argument, the Court placedMr. Pellegrin under oath and questioned him regarding thesource of the suspicious citation and suspicious quotation.15Mr. Pellegrin stated that he used Google Gemini, a generativeAI platform, in drafting the brief. Mr. Pellegrin acknowledgedthat he was aware AI can produce hallucinations and admittedthat he failed to verify the accuracy of the sources cited in theopposition before submitting it to the Court.
Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 On August 4, 2025, the Court ordered Mr. Pellegrin to“appear on Wednesday, August 27, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., andshow cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for hisfailure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).”16 On August 19, 2025, Mr. Pellegrin filed a motionrequesting the Court allow counsel to enroll on his behalf “forthe limited purposes of [the] Court's Show Cause Order.”17The Court granted the Motion to Enroll and permitted Mr.Pellegrin's newly enrolled counsel leave to file a pre-hearingbrief.18 Mr. Pellegrin's pre-hearing brief was then promptlyfiled into the record.19In his pre-hearing brief, Mr. Pellegrin argues that his situationis comparable to that confronted by the Eastern District ofNew York in Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation.20In Benjamin, counsel used an AI platform to draft a briefthat contained multiple fabricated case citations.21 The Courtsanctioned the attorney, noting that although she expressedregret, had never previously used AI for drafting, andundertook CLE training, a $1,000 sanction was still necessaryto deter future misconduct.22 However, the Court declinedto refer her to a disciplinary body, finding such a sanction“unnecessary under the circumstances.”23Mr. Pellegrin also argues his conduct is distinguishable fromthat addressed by this Court in Nora v. M & A Transport,24 inwhich counsel was sanctioned for filing a motion containingthree inaccurate citations and misrepresenting their source tothe Court. In Nora, the Court imposed a $1,000 sanction,required the attorney to attend CLE on AI, and referredher to the disciplinary committee of the Eastern District ofLouisiana.25 Mr. Pellegrin argues that his conduct warrantsa less severe sanction than that imposed in Nora as his briefcontained only two inaccurate citations, he was forthcomingabout his use of AI, and he expressed remorse.26Mr. Pellegrin further argues that the harm caused byhis inaccurate citation and quotation was limited because,although the citations and quotations were not accurate ascited, the underlying legal contentions were nonethelesswarranted by existing Fifth Circuit and Louisiana law.27Finally, Mr. Pellegrin identified several mitigating factors,including his twelve years of practice as a Louisiana lawyerwithout prior discipline; the serious personal health issues hefaced during the briefing period;28 his candor with the court;and the remedial steps he has since taken—completing CLEtraining on ethical AI use, reviewing the Louisiana State barAssociation's public opinion on lawyers’ use of technology,and reading additional articles on ethical AI use in the legalfield.29On August 27, 2025, the Court held a show cause hearing forMr. Pellegrin.30LEGAL STANDARDFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governs the signing ofpleadings, motions, and other papers, representations to theCourt, and sanctions. Rule 11(b) states that*3 (b) By presenting to the court a pleading,written motion, or other paper--whether by signing,filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney orunrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person'sknowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions arewarranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argumentfor extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or forestablishing new law.31Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1), “[i]f, after notice and a reasonableopportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b)has been violated, the court may impose an appropriatesanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated therule or is responsible for the violation.” Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3), “[o]n its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, orparty to show cause why conduct specifically described in theorder has not violated Rule 11(b).”32 Pursuant to Rule 11(5)(B), “[t]he court must not impose a monetary sanction...onits own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claimsmade by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are,to be sanctioned.”33LAW AND ANALYSISBefore sanctioning an attorney, the Court must complywith the mandates of due process which demand that theparty subject to potential sanctions receive notice and an
Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3opportunity to be heard.34 The Court ordered Mr. Pellegrininto Court on August 27, 2025, to show cause why he shouldnot be sanctioned.35 The Court provided Mr. Pellegrin noticeand an opportunity to be heard.The Court finds Mr. Pellegrin's conduct is in violationof Rule 11(b)(2). In determining whether an attorney hascomplied with Rule 11, courts apply “an objective, not asubjective, standard of reasonableness.”36 “[T]he centralpurpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in districtcourt and...streamline the administration and procedure of thefederal courts.”37 “At the very least, the duties imposed byRule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm theexistence and validity of, the legal authorities on which theyrely.”38Mr. Pellegrin signed and filed Plaintiffs’ Memorandum inOpposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss39 withoutverifying the accuracy of a citation and quotation containedin his brief. Mr. Pellegrin violated Rule 11(b)(2) by citingto a fabricated, AI-generated case without confirming theaccuracy, or even the existence, of the case.40 He alsoviolated Rule 11(b)(2) by representing that a quotation wasaccurate when the language did not appear in the cited caseor in any other case located by the Court.41 Mr. Pellegrinadmitted these violations of Rule 11 at the show cause hearingheld on August 27, 2025.*4 The Court rejects Mr. Pellegrin's argument thatthe submission of a fabricated case and quotation isless harmful when the underlying legal contentions areotherwise accurate.42 The submission of any false authorityundermines the Court's confidence in counsel's work andforces the Court to expend significant resources addressingthe misconduct. The Court also rejects Mr. Pellegrin'scontention that his personal history, remorse, and subsequentefforts to educate himself on ethical AI use justify his conduct.While these factors are relevant to the severity of the sanction,they do not excuse Mr. Pellegrin's conduct or eliminate theneed for a sanction to promote respect for the Court anddeter repetition. The Court, however, does commend Mr.Pellegrin's candor and his efforts to educate himself on ethicalAI use. The Court has considered these mitigating factors inthe imposition of the sanction.Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED that David C. Pellegrin is personallySANCTIONED for his conduct in this case in the amountof $1,000.43 This amount must be paid by Mr. Pellegrinpersonally and may not be paid for by his law firm or thePlaintiffs.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanction is to be paidby Thursday, September 25, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. to:Clerk, United States District Court EasternDistrict of Louisiana 500 Poydras Street,Room C151 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pellegrin isREFERRED to the Disciplinary Committee of the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Louisianain accordance with the Eastern District's Rules for LawyerDisciplinary Enforcement.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2481375Footnotes1R. Doc. 25.2R. Doc. 23.3R. Doc. 35.4R. Doc. 23.
Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.45R. Doc. 25.6R. Doc. 25, at pp. 11-12.7No. 20-1361 (E.D. La. May 4, 2020).8No. 11-42, 2021 WL 1080684 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2021).9959 F.2d 569, 575 (5th Cir. 1992).10R. Doc. 25, at p. 5.11959 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1992).12R. Doc. 26.13R. Doc. 28.14Id.15Id.16R. Doc. 27.17R. Doc. 29.18R. Doc. 32; R. Doc. 31.19R. Doc. 30.20779 F.Supp.3d 341 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2025).21Id. at 342.22Id. at 346-47.23Id. at 351.2425-1015, 2025 WL 2337132 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2025).25Id.26R. Doc. 30, at p. 8.27Id. at pp 8-12. The Defendants disagree with this assertion. R. Doc. 38.28At the show cause hearing, Mr. Pellegrin informed the Court that he was hospitalized from May 2 to May8. However, the brief was not due, and in fact was not filed, until two and a half weeks later, on May 27.R. Doc. 27.29R. Doc. 30, at pp. 14-15.30R. Doc. 35.31FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2).
Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.532Id. at (c)(3).33Id. at (5)(B).34Id. at (c).35R. Doc. 27; R. Doc. 35.36Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 528 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Whitehead v. Food Maxof Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).37Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990).38Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 23-00281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024)(first quoting Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024); then citing Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp.3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)).39R. Doc. 25.40Id. at pp. 11-12.41Id. at p. 5.42The Court makes no finding on the accuracy of the legal contentions cited by Mr. Pellegrin in his pre-hearingbrief.43The Court may impose a monetary sanction pursuant to Rule 11(5)(B), as it issued the show cause orderbefore the voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims in this case.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