Litvinova v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
- Susan Illston
- 3:25-cv-06253
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Litvinova v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Judge Illston ordered counsel to explain inaccurate citations and show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed.
Plaintiff's counsel must provide the ordered explanation and respond to the possible Rule 11 sanctions. The complaint and defendants' motion to dismiss remain pending.
What happened
In Litvinova v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the court reviewed plaintiff's opposition to defendants' pending motion to dismiss and found several inaccurate legal citations.
The court identified three quotations that did not appear in the cases cited and one citation to a case that did not support the stated proposition. One cited case concerned insurance claims, not workplace retaliation. The court also noted that plaintiff's counsel signed the opposition.
Judge Susan Illston ordered plaintiff's counsel to explain by October 3, 2025, how the errors occurred, including whether artificial intelligence was used and who prepared or reviewed the brief. Counsel must also explain why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss or impose sanctions in this order.
The detailed version
- Litvinova v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · No. 3:25-cv-06253
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 23, 2025
Background
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was scheduled for a hearing on October 10, 2025. While reviewing plaintiff's opposition, the court found problems with four legal citations.
Citation Problems
The opposition attributed a quotation to Hernandez v. Creative Concepts, Inc., but the quotation did not appear in that case. It also cited Hayden v. Reickerd for a proposition and included a quotation that did not appear there. A third quotation, attributed to Radcliffe v. Rainbow Construction Co., likewise did not appear in the cited case.
The opposition also cited Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance Co. for the proposition that workplace retaliation combined with emotional abuse could constitute outrageous conduct. The court stated that Fletcher involved an insured's bad-faith insurance claim, not workplace retaliation, and did not discuss workplace retaliation or outrageous conduct in the workplace.
Rule 11 and the Court's Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) requires a lawyer or unrepresented party submitting a court filing to certify that the legal claims and arguments are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing or developing the law. The court explained that signing a filing also requires a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law. Plaintiff's counsel signed the opposition brief.
The court ordered plaintiff's counsel to explain in writing by October 3, 2025, how the citation errors came to be included. The explanation must address whether counsel used artificial intelligence, who prepared the brief, and who reviewed it before filing. The court also directed counsel to show cause—meaning explain why—sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11. This order did not decide defendants' motion to dismiss and did not impose sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.