Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Avenue LLC

Background

The court had previously ordered Mr. Feldman to show why the brief supporting Defendant Affable Avenue LLC’s motion to dismiss should not be stricken from the docket and why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Mr. Feldman submitted a written response, and later filed another letter on Affable’s behalf concerning additional papers supporting the motion to dismiss.

The court became concerned because the writing style of Mr. Feldman’s response differed markedly from the later letter. The response included an extended quotation from Fahrenheit 451, a metaphor about an ancient stylus, and a quotation attributed to Mata v. Avianca, Inc. The court found that the quotation did not appear in Mata and instead appeared to be taken directly from an article without attribution. The court stated that this was particularly concerning because the response addressed possible sanctions for erroneous citations.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Mr. Feldman’s characterization of the citation errors as inadvertent results of artificial-intelligence “hallucinations.” It stated that Rule 11 required him to verify that cited cases were real and concluded that failing to do so involved deliberate choices. The court also rejected his references to database-migration problems and noted that he did not promptly notify the court after opposing counsel informed him of citation errors on June 22, 2025.

Mr. Feldman requested permission to file a corrected and amended memorandum addressing citation deficiencies and asserted factual developments. He also sought to supplement the motion concerning arbitration. The court denied permission to amend the brief regarding arbitration, stating that Mr. Feldman could not benefit from failing to substantially raise that issue earlier. The opinion also states that the court had previously expressed skepticism about Affable’s motion to compel arbitration.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the request for leave to file a corrected and amended memorandum and denied the request to amend the brief regarding arbitration. The court reserved decision on whether to impose sanctions, what form any sanctions would take, whether to strike the June 20, 2025 brief, and whether to permit an amended brief addressing non-arbitration arguments. The court also reserved decision on Mr. Feldman’s request to file a related document under seal. It ordered Mr. Feldman and all parties who had appeared in the action to attend a conference on August 14, 2025. The opinion states that Defendant Top Experience Company LLC’s motion to dismiss remained pending.