Keaau Dev. Partnership LLC v. Lawrence, No. 3CCV-24-0000033 (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Hawaii (HI)
Court
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Majority
Leonard (Justice), joined by Hiraoka (Justice), McCullen (Justice)
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALSOF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I---o0o---KEAAU DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP LLC, Plaintiff/CounterclaimDefendant/Cross-claimant/Cross-claim Defendant-Appellant,v.PATRICK JOHN LAWRENCE, JR. dba as PJ'S CONSTRUCTION,Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-claimant/Cross-claimDefendant-Appellee,and JANEL M. ARAUJO INC.; JANEL ARAUJO; and ROBERT C. SMELKER,Defendants/Cross-claim Defendants-Appellees,and ANNALEINE MELICIA REYNOLDS, Defendant/Cross-claimDefendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-claimant-Appellee,andLEORA WHITE THOMPSON and HEIRS OR ASSIGNS OF LEORA WHITETHOMPSON, Defendants/Cross-claim Defendants-Appellees,and COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, Defendant/Cross-claim Defendant-Appellee,andJOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; DOE TRUSTS 1-10;and DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, DefendantsNO. CAAP-24-0000494APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT(CASE NO. 3CCV-24-0000033)MAY 15, 2025LEONARD, ACTING CHIEF JUDGE, HIRAOKA AND McCULLEN, JJ.Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-24-000049415-MAY-202510:45 AMDkt. 78 PO
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERAMENDED ORDER OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.Defendant/Cross-claim Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-claimant-Appellee Annaleine Melicia Reynolds moved to dismissthis appeal for lack of jurisdiction on September 5, 2024. Themotion and memorandum in support were signed by Reynolds'attorney, James D. DiPasquale. The memorandum cited Greenspan v.Greenspan, 121 Hawai#i 60, 71, 214 P.3d 557, 568 (App. 2009), asa case where "the court rejected the applicability of the ForgayDoctrine where no immediate transfer of property was ordered andno immediate danger of irreparable harm existed." The courtfound that 121 Hawai#i 60 and 121 Hawai#i 71 are pinpointcitations to Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai#i 59, 214 P.3d598 (2009); 214 P.3d 557 is the citation for Madison CapitalCompany v. Star Acquisition VIII, 214 P.3d 557 (Colo. App. 2009);and 214 P.3d 568 is a pinpoint citation to City of Boulder v.Farmer's Reservoir & Irrigation Company, 214 P.3d 563 (Colo. App.2009). The court couldn't find a Hawai#i appellate decision,reported or unreported, titled Greenspan v. Greenspan.Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 11 (eff.2019) provides, in relevant part:(b) Representations to court. By presenting to thecourt (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or lateradvocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, anattorney . . . is certifying that to the best of theperson's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after aninquiry reasonable under the circumstances:. . . .(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentionstherein are warranted by existing law[.]2
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER"A fake opinion is not 'existing law' . . . . Anattempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying onfake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system." Mata v.Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (footnoteomitted).1 "Thus, using a fake opinion to support an argument isa violation of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] Rule 11(b)(2)." Wadsworth v.Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 495 (D. Wyo. 2025).On April 25, 2025, the court ordered DiPasquale to showcause why he should not be sanctioned under HRCP Rule 11(c)(1)(B)for violation of HRCP Rule 11(b), made applicable by Hawai#iRules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 2.1(a). DiPasqualefiled a declaration on April 29, 2025. He stated he had"retained a per diem attorney — someone I had previously workedwith and trusted — to handle the drafting" of the motion todismiss and "failed to verify every single citation meticulously,specifically missing the fabricated citation of the 'Greenspan'case[.]" He stated, "[a]lthough I did not personally use AI[(artificial intelligence)] in this case, I failed to ensure thatevery citation was accurate before filing the brief."[T]he signing attorney cannot leave it to some trustedsubordinate, or to one of his partners, to satisfy himselfthat the filed paper is factually and legally responsible;by signing he represents not merely the fact that it is so,but also the fact that he personally has applied his ownjudgment.1"Where we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalentrule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], interpretations of therule by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoningof this court." Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai#i 94, 105, 962 P.2d 353, 364(1998) (citation omitted) (citing federal case discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).3
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTEREnos v. Pac. Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., 79 Hawai#i 452, 457, 903P.2d 1273, 1278 (1995) (quoting Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Ent.Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 125 (1989)). The court finds thatDiPasquale's citation of Greenspan — a nonexistent case — withoutfirst attempting to read it to confirm his contention of itsholding was not reasonable under the circumstances, and aviolation of HRCP Rule 11(b)(2). Cf. Benjamin v. CostcoWholesale Corp., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:24-CV-7399 (LGD),2025 WL 1195925, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2025) (order imposingsanctions) (stating that "an attorney who submits fake casesclearly has not read those nonexistent cases, which is aviolation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure")."[T]he central purpose of [federal] Rule 11 is to deterbaseless filings in district court and thus . . . streamline theadministration and procedure of the federal courts." Cooter &Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990). Federal courtsseem to encounter AI-generated citations to nonexistent caseswith increasing frequency, "raising the importance of educatingand deterring the larger bar from repeating similar conduct." United States v. Hayes, --- F. Supp. 3d ---,No. 2:24-CR-0280-DJC, 2025 WL 235531, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17,2025) (order), recon. denied, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9,2025).To his credit, DiPasquale accepted full responsibilityfor his omission. His declaration states that he has "sincecommitted to a stricter personal verification process, whichincludes manually confirming the full text and publication of4
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERevery cited authority before filing, regardless of who preparesthe draft." Under the circumstances, the court concludes that a$100 sanction against DiPasquale is appropriate.2THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)James D. DiPasquale is sanctioned in the amount of$100.00 for violation of HRCP Rule 11, made applicable by HRAPRule 2.1(a);(2)A check in the full amount, payable to the ChiefClerk, Supreme Court, along with a copy of this order, shall bedeposited with the Supreme Court Clerk's Office within seven daysfrom the date of this order;(3)A declaration from DiPasquale attesting to thepayment shall be filed within seven days from the date of thisorder;(4)The sanction shall be paid by DiPasqualepersonally and without reimbursement from DiPasquale's client;and2The $100 amount is consistent with sanctions this court hasimposed for serious rule violations in other cases. But we note that federalcourts have imposed monetary sanctions ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 insimilar cases. See, e.g., Benjamin, --- F. Supp. 3d at ---, 2025 WL 1195925,at *9 ($1,000 for citing nonexistent cases "because of [counsel]'s candor andsincere regret"); Dehghani v. Castro, No. 2:25-CV-0052 MIS-DLM, 2025 WL988009, at *5 (D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2025) (mem. op. & ord.) ($1,500 for citingnonexistent cases); Hayes, --- F. Supp. 3d at ---, 2025 WL 235531, at *15($1,500 for citing nonexistent case); Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,No. 1:23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) (mem. & ord)($2,000 for citing nonexistent cases and quotations); Wadsworth, 348 F.R.D. at498 ($3,000 for citing "hallucinated cases"); Mata, 678 F.Supp.3d at 466($5,000 for using AI to generate excerpt of nonexistent opinion); Mid Cent.Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC,No. 2:24-CV-00326-JPH-MJD, 2025 WL 574234, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025)(rep. & recommendation) (recommending $5,000 for each of three briefs citingnonexistent cases).5
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER(5)Failure to comply with this order may result inadditional sanctions./s/ Katherine G. LeonardActing Chief Judge/s/ Keith K. HiraokaAssociate Judge/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullenAssociate Judge6
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