Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
, No. 6D2025-3086 (Apr. 10, 2026)
Case details
Full caption
Bruno Roberto Rodriguez v. Kathryn Louise Rodriguez
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Florida (FL)
Court
Florida Supreme Court
Decided
Apr. 10, 2026
Disposition
Certiorari Dismissed
Majority
Pratt (J.), joined by Stargel (J.), Mize (J.)
S
IXTH
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
OF
A
PPEAL
S
TATE
OF
F
LORIDA
_____________________________
Case
No.
6D
202
5
-
3086
Lower
Tribunal
No.
2025
-
DR
-
002837-
O
_____________________________
B
RUNO
R
OBERTO
R
ODRIGUEZ
,
Petitioner
,
v.
K
ATH
RYN
L
OUISE
R
ODRIGUEZ
,
Respondent
.
_____________________________
Petition
for
Writ
of
Certiorari
to
the
Circuit
Court
for
Orange
County.
Craig
A.
McCarthy
,
Judge.
April
10,
2026
PRATT,
J.
The
petition
for
writ
of
certiorari,
docketed
December
12,
2025,
is
dismissed
without
further
discussion.
We
write
to
address
the
petition’s
concerning
citation
to
non-
existent
cases,
as
well
as
the
petition’s
concerning
citation
to
actual
cases
which
do
not
stand
for
the
legal
propositions
asserted
in
the
petition.
From
all
appearances,
the
petition
bears
the
hallmarks
of
having
been
produced
by
Karin
Gerardin—an
attorney—on
2
behalf
of
Petitioner
with
the
assistance
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(“AI”)
1
but
without
Ms.
Gerardin
having
put
sufficient
guardrails
into
place
to
ensure
the
accuracy
of
the
cases
cited
in
the
petition
or
the
accuracy
of
the
legal
propositions
for
which
the
cases
are
cited
in
the
petition.
The
petition
filed
by
Ms.
Gerardin
on
behalf
of
Petitioner
cites
to
a
number
of
cases.
Some
of
the
cited
cases
both
exist
and
are
cited
for
legal
propositions
that
the
cited
cases
actually
represent.
Some
of
the
cited
cases
do
not
exist.
And
some
of
the
ci
ted
cases
are
cited
for
legal
propositions
that
the
cited
cases
do
not
actually
represent.
We
recently
addressed
a
similar
scenario
where
a
pro
se
litigant
submitted
a
filing
to
this
Court
that
cited
to
non-
existent
cases,
as
well
as
cited
to
actual
cases
which
did
not
stand
for
the
legal
propositions
asserted
in
the
filing
.
See
Hessert
v.
Hessert
,
No.
6D2026-
0121,
2026
WL
785016
(Fla.
6th
DCA
Mar.
20,
2026).
In
Hessert
,
we
acknowledged
that
“[c]ourts
across
the
United
States,
including
Florida’s
appellate
courts,
are
currently
grappling
with
an
influx
of
court
filings
1
“Generative
AI[
—i.e.,
generative
artificial
intelligence
—]are
deep
-
learning
models
that
compile
data
to
generate
statistically
probable
outputs
when
prompted.
.
.
.
Generative
AI
can
create
original
images,
analyze
documents,
and
draft
briefs
based
on
written
prompts.
Often,
these
programs
rely
on
large
language
models.
The
datasets
utilized
by
generative
AI
large
language
models
can
included
billions
of
parameters
making
it
virtually
impossible
to
determine
how
a
program
came
to
a
specific
result.
.
.
.
[G]enerative
AI
can
hallucinate
or
create
inaccurate
answers
that
sound
convincing.
”
Fla.
Bar
Ethics
Op.
24
-
1
,
at
1
-
2
(Jan.
19,
2024)
(citations
and
internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
3
produced
by
pro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
alike
with
the
assistance
of
AI
that
cite
non-
existent
cases
or
that
cite
actual
cases
for
inaccurate
legal
propositions.”
Hessert
,
2026
WL
785016,
at
*1.
There,
we
surveyed
a
number
of
relevant
authorities
—including
the
Florida
Rules
of
Appellate
Procedure,
the
Florida
Rules
of
General
Practice
and
Judicial
Administration,
the
Rules
Regulating
the
Florida
Bar,
the
Florida
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct,
and
case
authorities
—and
in
doing
so
we
made
a
number
of
observations,
including
that
“[a]lthough
AI
is
a
relatively
new
technology,
and
although
AI
may
have
appropriate
uses
in
the
legal
field,
there
is
simply
no
excuse
for
pro
se
litigants
or
attorneys
to
file
briefs,
motions,
and
other
filings
in
Florida’s
appellate
co
urts
that
cite
to
cases
without
first
performing
the
necessary
and
simple
steps
of
(1)
cite
-
checking
the
cases
to
ensure
they
actually
exist
and
(2)
cite
-
checking
the
cases
to
ensure
they
actually
represent
the
legal
propositions
asserted”
;
that
“[t]his
is
true
regardless
of
whether
such
filings
are
prepared
with
or
without
the
assistance
of
AI”
;
that
“Florida’s
appellate
courts,
like
other
courts,
require
pro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
to
sign
their
filings
and
thereby
represent
the
accuracy
thereof”
;
that
“[m]embers
of
the
Florida
Bar
—who
are
officers
of
the
court
—must
also
comply
with
their
ethical
duties
when
they
sign
and
make
filings
in
Florida’s
appellate
courts”;
that
“Florida’s
appellate
courts
have
the
authority
and
the
duty
to
maintain
the
integri
ty
of
the
proceedings
before
them,
including
where
appropriate
sanctioning
pro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
who
fail
to
4
follow
the
Florida
Rules
of
Appellate
Procedure
and
court
orders”
;
and
that
“Florida’s
appellate
courts
also
have
the
authority
and
the
duty
to
safeguard
the
integrity
of
the
legal
profession,
including
where
appropriate
referring
an
attorney
to
the
Florida
Bar
for
potential
disciplinary
action.”
Id.
at
*1-
2
(citations
omitted).
We
also
made
a
number
of
forewarnings,
including
that
“[a]ll
filers
in
cases
before
the
Sixth
District
Court
of
Appeal
should
take
notice:
our
Court
will
remain
vigilant
to
ensure
t
hat
filings
signed
by
pro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
alike
—including
filings
prepared
with
or
without
the
assistance
of
AI—both:
(1)
do
not
cite
to
non-
existent
cases
and
(2)
do
not
cite
to
cases
for
inaccurate
legal
propositions”
;
that
“[i]f
and
when
any
such
erroneous
filings
are
made
in
a
given
case
before
our
Court,
filers
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
case
should
point
out
such
errors
to
our
Court
either
in
their
responsive
filings
or
via
motion”
;
that
“[t]o
avoid
the
potentiality
of
the
issuance
of
orde
rs
to
show
cause,
pro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
should
remember
their
obligation
to
cite
-
check
all
cases
cited
in
their
filings
in
Florida’s
appellate
courts
prior
to
making
their
filings
—regardless
of
whether
their
filings
are
prepared
with
or
without
th
e
assistance
of
AI”
;
and
that
“[p]ro
se
litigants
and
attorneys
should
also
remember
that
they
cannot
satisfy
their
aforementioned
obligation
by
relying
upon
AI
to
cite
-
check
the
cases
cited
in
their
filings.”
Id.
at
*2
(citations
omitted).
Ultimately,
in
Hessert
we
issued
an
order
to
show
cause
why
the
pro
se
litigant
in
that
case
should
5
not
be
sanctioned
for
filing
a
petition
that
contained
non-
existent
cases
and
that
cited
to
cases
for
inaccurate
legal
propositions.
Id.
at
*3.
2
In
the
petition
at
issue
in
this
case,
Ms.
Gerardin
has
provided
citations
to
a
number
of
cases,
some
of
which
exist
and
some
of
which
do
not.
Ms.
Gerardin
is
directed
to
provide
copies
of
each
and
every
case
cited
in
the
petition
that
actually
exists
with
highlighted
quotations
or
language
that
support
the
assertions
made
in
the
petition.
These
cases
shall
be
filed
in
a
supplemental
appendix,
indexed
for
each
case,
with
this
Court
within
ten
days
of
the
issuance
of
this
opinion.
Ms.
Gerardin
shall
follow
the
same
procedure
within
ten
days
of
the
issuance
of
this
opinion
regarding
the
reply
she
filed
on
behalf
of
Petitioner
in
this
case,
as
Petitioner’s
reply
to
Respondent’s
response
to
the
petition
suffers
from
the
same
defects
as
those
contained
in
the
petition.
In
light
of
the
foregoing,
Ms.
Gerardin
is
directed
to
show
cause
within
ten
days
of
the
issuance
of
this
opinion:
(1)
why
she
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
filing
a
petition
(and
a
reply)
that
contains
non
-
existent
cases
and
that
cites
to
cases
for
inaccurate
legal
propositions
and
(2)
why
she
should
not
be
referred
to
the
Florida
Bar
for
potential
discipline.
2
Hessert
involved
a
pro
se
litigant
rather
than
an
attorney.
Nevertheless,
we
find
the
reasoning
of
Hessert
to
be
persuasive,
and
we
adopt
and
incorporate
the
reasoning
of
Hessert
in
full
in
this
opinion.
6
PETITION
DISMISSED
.
ORDER
TO
SHOW
CAUSE
ISSUED.
STARGEL
and
MIZE
,
J
J
.,
concur.
Karin
S.
Gerardin,
of
Gerardin
Law
Firm,
P.A.
,
Tavares
,
for
Petitioner.
Shane
T.
Herbert
,
of
Shane
T.
Herbert
Law
,
Windermere
,
for
Respondent.
NOT
FINAL
UNTIL
TIME
EXPIRES
TO
FILE
MOTION
FOR
REHEARING
AND
DISPOSITION
THEREOF
IF
TIMELY
FILED
Provenance
Know 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