Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Judge Woods warned that fictitious legal citations could lead to sanctions but imposed none.
Michael Cordero Romero and Goldman Sachs Bank USA, as parties to the case; the warning applies to both represented and self-represented litigants submitting materials to the court.
What happened
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Michael Cordero Romero asked the court to block new evidence supporting Goldman Sachs Bank USA’s motion to compel arbitration. The court said it would address that request after the parties finished briefing it.
The court found that two important citations in Romero’s filing were wrong: one cited case did not support the quoted statement, and another citation appeared to refer to a nonexistent case. The court said the filing showed signs of possibly using a generative artificial intelligence tool, but it did not find that Romero had done so and took no action against him at that time.
Judge Gregory H. Woods reminded both represented and self-represented parties that court filings must contain accurate legal claims and citations. He warned that knowingly presenting fictitious citations, quotations, or legal holdings could support monetary or non-monetary sanctions under the federal filing rules or the court’s inherent authority.
The detailed version
- Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA · No. 1:25-cv-02857
- Gregory Woods
- June 25, 2025
Background
Michael Cordero Romero, who was representing himself, filed a motion asking the court to exclude new evidence supporting Goldman Sachs Bank USA’s motion to compel arbitration. The court stated that it would decide the motion’s merits after the filing was fully briefed.
Citation problems
The court identified two erroneous citations in Romero’s filing. First, Romero cited In re Motors Liquidation Co., 957 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2020), for the proposition that a reply brief cannot introduce new evidence or arguments that should have appeared in the opening motion. The court said the cited opinion did not concern that issue and did not contain the quotation attributed to it.
Second, Romero cited Beckford v. City of New York, No. 12-cv-9231, 2015 WL 5521435, at *6–27 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015). The court said that citation appeared to be fictitious because Westlaw contained no case published at that citation. The court also said that the two cases it found with the same caption did not address reply-brief issues.
Rule 11 warning
The court said the citation and quotation problems bore the signs of possible use of a generative artificial intelligence tool, which can fabricate legal authorities. The court expressly did not find that Romero used such a tool. Because Romero was representing himself, the court gave him special consideration and took no action based on the fictitious citations at that time.
The court nevertheless reminded the parties that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to both lawyers and people representing themselves. The rule requires a person who submits a court filing to have a reasonable basis for its legal claims and arguments. Rule 11 violations may result in monetary or non-monetary sanctions. The court explained that an opposing party may seek sanctions after a 21-day period to withdraw or correct the challenged filing, while court-initiated sanctions do not include that period.
Disposition
The court did not decide Romero’s motion to exclude new evidence. It placed the parties on notice that presenting false citations, quotations, or legal holdings may be sanctionable and said that fictitious materials submitted after the order could be treated as evidence of subjective bad faith when considering sanctions under Rule 11 or the court’s inherent authority.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.