Zhang v. Driscoll, No. 25-cv-03381-AMO (Jan. 14, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Jan. 14, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
HANG ZHANG, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL DRISCOLL, Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 99759Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, N.D. California.HANG ZHANG, Plaintiff,v.DANIEL DRISCOLL, Defendant.Case No. 25-cv-03381-AMO|Filed 01/14/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsHang Zhang, Palo Alto, CA, Pro Se.Molly Anne Landon Friend, Valerie Elizabeth Smith, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, forDefendant.ORDER ISSUING SANCTIONSARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN United States DistrictJudge*1 On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff Hang Zhang filed a replybrief in support of her then-pending motion for preliminaryinjunction. See Dkt. No. 31. The Court denied the motionfor preliminary injunction by order issued December 3, 2025.Dkt. No. 32. In that same order, the Court ordered Zhangto show cause why sanctions should not issue because ofthe inclusion of multiple citations to fictitious cases in thereply brief. Id. at 10-11. On December 10, 2025, Zhang fileda response to the show cause order and stated regardingthe offending citations, “[t]he citation issues identified bythe Court involve two citations in the reply brief. The citeddecisions are real, published cases; the issues concern circuitdesignation and characterization of the cited propositions.”Dkt. No. 33 at 2. Later the same day, the Court ordered Zhangto file a declaration with complete copies of the two citedcases. Dkt. No. 34. On December 15, 2025, Zhang then fileda further declaration, stating, “[t]he citation issues arose fromediting errors during preparation of my reply brief,” and citingto two published circuit opinions. See Dkt. No. 35.As highlighted in the Court's order to show cause, Rule11 imposes an affirmative duty on litigants to investigatethe caselaw they cite before submitting a court filing, andthat duty applies to pro se litigants. See Dkt. No. 32 at 10.Comparing the fictitious case citations to the citations of thetwo cases Zhang appended to her most recent declaration, theform and content of both are too far apart to plausibly resultfrom a mere drafting error. Zhang's representation regardingher erroneous citation to the fictitious cases in her reply briefis simply not credible. Zhang breached her Rule 11 duty byciting fictitious cases.Worse, Zhang then exacerbated that breach by (1) certifyingthat the cases were real and then, realizing that the cases werenot real, (2) certifying that the citations resulted from draftingerror. Indeed, Zhang did not acknowledge or aim to addressher erroneous citations until compelled to file copies of thecited cases. Compare Dkt. No. 33 with Dkt. No. 35. The Courtconcludes that Zhang's responses to the show cause orderwere dishonest, a further breach of Rule 11.Because Zhang failed to meaningfully show cause whysanctions should not issue, and because she failed to meet herobligations under Rule 11, the Court hereby SANCTIONSZhang in the amount of $500, payable to the Clerk of Courtby no later than February 12, 2026. This sanction is specificto the circumstances of the case, accounting for Zhang's non-attorney status as well as her dishonesty. The Court warns thatany future citation to fictitious cases by Zhang shall result incase-terminating sanctions.The Court expects counsel for Defendant to file an objectionidentifying any fictitious cases in Zhang's future filings andpreemptively grants counsel leave to file such an objection asa standalone docket entry.IT IS SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 99759End 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