## Facts

- Roberto Mata alleged he was injured on an Avianca international flight when a metal service cart struck his knee in August 2019.
- After prior litigation was affected by Avianca’s bankruptcy, Mata filed the present action in New York state court in February 2022; Avianca removed to federal court.
- Avianca moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was time-barred by the Montreal Convention’s two-year limitations period.
- In opposing dismissal, Mata’s counsel filed a submission citing multiple purported federal decisions; the cited cases, quotations, and citations were generated using ChatGPT and did not exist.
- When challenged, counsel submitted purported “copies” of the decisions that were also fabricated.
- The court ordered counsel to produce the decisions, issued an order to show cause, held an evidentiary hearing, and addressed sanctions in a written opinion and order.

## Issues

1. Whether submitting fabricated judicial opinions violated 18 U.S.C. § 505 (forgery of a judge’s signature or a court seal).
2. Whether counsel violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances into the validity of cited authorities and representations to the court.
3. Whether the conduct reflected subjective bad faith supporting sanctions under the court’s inherent authority.
4. What sanctions were appropriate to deter repetition and address harm.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the underlying action as time-barred under the Montreal Convention’s two-year limitations period.
- The court found no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 because the fabricated opinions did not include a forged judge’s signature or a counterfeit court seal.
- The court found Rule 11 violations and also found bad faith warranting inherent-power sanctions, based on submission of non-existent cases and continued reliance on them after the court questioned their existence.
- The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction, jointly and severally against the two attorneys and their firm, payable to the Clerk of Court.
- The court ordered non-monetary sanctions requiring counsel to notify the judges and courts falsely identified in the fabricated opinions and to provide them with the sanctions opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires attorneys to ensure legal and factual contentions have support after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances; this includes verifying that cited authorities exist and are accurately quoted.
- Reliance on an AI tool does not excuse counsel’s personal responsibility for the accuracy of filings; attorneys function as gatekeepers for submissions presented to a court.
- Persisting in false citations and making misleading statements after warnings can support a finding of bad faith and justify sanctions under the court’s inherent authority.
- Sanctions must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated, and may include monetary and non-monetary measures.
- 18 U.S.C. § 505 targets forgery of a judge’s signature or a court seal; false attribution of opinions without a forged signature or seal does not, by itself, satisfy the statute.

## Conclusion

The court sanctioned counsel for submitting ChatGPT-generated fictitious authorities and for failing to correct the record when the problem became clear, holding that Rule 11 and inherent-power sanctions were warranted to deter misconduct and protect the integrity of judicial proceedings, while rejecting criminal-forgery liability under § 505 on the facts presented.


Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)