M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition (2026)

Case details
Full caption
M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
It is most distressing to have the need to issue this Order. In two instances, the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum [ECF 23] purports to quote from two federal cases in which the quotes do not appear: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados Ltda., Industrial Arbhores Compensados EIRELI, and Instituto Brasileiro de Certificações e Inspeções, Ltda., Plaintiffs, 25-cv-4568 (PKC) -against- ORDER U.S. STRUCTURAL PLYWOOD INTEGRITY COALITION, an unincorporated association; SCOTCH PLYWOOD CO., INC., an Alabama corporation; VENEER PRODUCTS ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a SOUTHERN VENEER PRODUCTS, SOUTHERN VENEER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; HUNT FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company; FRERES LUMBER CO., INC., an Oregon corporation; MURPHY COMPANY, an Oregon corporation; SDS LUMBER LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SWANSON GROUP, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------x CASTEL, Senior District Judge Case 1:25-cv-04568-PKC Document 47 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 1. See NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc, 525 U.S. 128, 135 (1998) (“Concerted refusals to deal or group boycotts are judged under the per se rule when the surrounding circumstances reveal a naked restraint of trade.”). [ECF 23 at 15] 2. “[W]here competitors collectively seek to deprive a rival of access to a market,” the action “is not immunized merely because the defendants believe their cause to be just.” Int’l Railways of Cent. Am. v. United Brands Co., 532 F.2d 231, 239 (2d Cir. 1976). [ECF 23 at 16] Why is there a “need” for the Order? Because if fake quotes are not dealt with appropriately, they will proliferate. Tolerating them or ignoring them is a luxury the American judicial system cannot afford. Why is it “distressing”? Because of the widespread reporting on such phenomena since the spring of 2023, one would think that serious lawyers would be on their guard against fabrications, hallucinations and bogus material. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). It raises in the mind of the prudent jurist questions of what else the judge ought not trust in the lawyer’s brief. The distrust it breeds has the potential to hurt clients. Within fourteen days of this Order, counsel signing the brief, Michael Stanton, shall file a declaration fully, truthfully and with complete candor explaining how this happened. Also within fourteen days, Mr. Stanton shall certify that he has read every case cited in the memorandum and has checked to see whether it is accurately cited, accurately quoted, remains good law and stands for the proposition for which it is cited, noting any exceptions in his declaration. The Court will thereafter decide whether and how to proceed further. Case 1:25-cv-04568-PKC Document 47 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York March 9, 2026 Case 1:25-cv-04568-PKC Document 47 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3
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