Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Bathsheba Nichole Adams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01823-PHX-DJH
ORDER
On April 24, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Bathsheba Nichole Adams (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Motion for Leave to File Revised Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38). However, upon
review of the Motion, the Court will strike it from the record as non-compliant with the
Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1(a) provides:
A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the
proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate
in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing
or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.
LRCiv. 15.1(a). Plaintiff’s proposed complaint attached to her Motion fails to meet the
above requirements. (Doc. 4 at 3 (“Any motion or notice that does not comply with the
local and federal rules may be stricken by the Court.”)).
Additionally, Plaintiff should be aware that she has a duty to meet and confer with
Defendants before filing any motion regarding proposed amendments. (See id.). There is
no indication that such meet-and-confer efforts were undertaken here. Moreover, a
Case 2:25-cv-01823-MTM Document 41 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint is not an appropriate place to reference legal authority. See, e.g., Williams v.
Grannis, 2007 WL 1113767, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (“Plaintiff complaint should not
contain legal arguments, citations to legal authority, or unnecessary background
information.”). Instead, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires that a complaint allege facts sufficient
to show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff has been informed twice now three
times that, in proceeding as a pro se plaintiff, she has an obligation to familiarize herself
with and abide by the Local and Federal Rules of Procedure. Failure to do so “may result
in sanctions up to dismissal.” Allen v. Quest Online, LLC, 2011 WL 4403674, at *2 (D.
Ariz. 2011); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).
On a related note, Plaintiff’s filing contained several troubling errors. Plaintiff cited
“Ellsworth v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 148 Ariz. 17, 19 (App. 1985)” (see Doc. 38-1 at 10).
However, no such case exists. Instead, there is a case out of Utah regarding whether a
plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement. See Ellsworth v. Am. Arb. Ass’n, 148 P.3d
983 (Utah 2006). Similarly, no 9th Circuit case named “Aguilar v. ASARCO” exists at
780 F.3d 1101. (See Doc. 38-1 at 17–18); see Lary v. Trinity Phys. Fin. & Ins. Services,
780 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2015). These hallucinations allow the Court to infer that Plaintiff
prepared her filing with the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). While the use
of such a tool is not necessarily problematic, the failure to confirm the accuracy of the
filing is. Rule 11 requires either a party or an attorney to sign every pleading, motion, or
other paper and provides that this signature constitutes a certificate that the signer has read
the document and verified its accuracy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. This duty includes ensuring
that all citations are accurate as well as any quoted portions or descriptions of the
referenced case. Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve her of this requirement. See
Federal Trade Comm’n v. James D Noland, Jr., 2026 WL 879369, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2026).
Plaintiff is now on notice that the use of hallucinated cases or the filing of documents
with related inaccuracies will result in sanctions. Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, 2025
WL 2928933, at *4 (D. Ariz. 2025) (“[W]hether [the plaintiff] used artificial intelligence
Case 2:25-cv-01823-MTM Document 41 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or simply imagined the cases himself, filing documents that contain such cases results in
confusion and unnecessary work for opposing parties and the court. In the future, filing
documents with fictitious cases will subject [the plaintiff] to sanctions under Rule 11.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Revised Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) is STRICKEN from the record.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01823-MTM Document 41 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 3