Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC

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
Jodell Dodge,
Plaintiff,
v.
FirstService Residential Arizona LLC,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM
ORDER
On November 6, 2025, the Court ordered Matthew V. Moosbrugger (“Mr.
Moosbrugger”) to appear at a Show Cause Hearing to explain why sanctions should not be
imposed on him for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. 30). On November
21, 2025, Mr. Moosbrugger appeared in front of this Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2025, Defendant submitted a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was set for July 25th,
however, Plaintiff failed to respond. Three days after the deadline, Plaintiff through
counsel, Mr. Moosbrugger, filed a Motion for Leave to file an untimely response, as well
as Plaintiff’s Response Brief. (Doc. 24). Defendant timely filed a Reply. (Doc. 28).
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, holding that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (See Doc. 29). During the
Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Response Brief, the Court found numerous citation-related
deficiencies, which the Court noted in its Order of Dismissal. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff’s Response
Brief was replete with misrepresented case holdings, including one cited case that does not
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 6

- 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
exist. (See Doc. 30). Consequently, the Court ordered Mr. Moosbrugger to appear to show
cause, if any, why sanctions should not be imposed upon him for violating Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11. See LRCiv 83.1(f). (Id. at 5). After issuing its Order, the Court found
additional citation-related deficiencies not mentioned in its initial Order, as well as multiple
citations deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave.1
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states, in relevant part, that “[b]y presenting to
the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper … an attorney or unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief … the claims,
defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b)(2).
A signature on a filing “certifies to the court that the signer has read the document,
has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is satisfied that the
document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper motive.” Bus.
Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 542 (1991). “[A]ny party
who signs a pleading, motion or other paper … [has] an affirmative duty to conduct a
reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing[.]” Id. at 551. “[T]he applicable
standard is one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Id. If the Court finds an
attorney has violated Rule 11(b), the Court “may impose an appropriate sanction” after the
Court has provided “notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c)(1); see also Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999)
(requiring notice and opportunity to respond before imposing sanctions).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court found nine case citation deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Response Brief,
including two misrepresented case holdings, five misquoted cases, and one case citation
that does not exist. The case citation deficiencies are summarized as follows:
1 The Court acknowledges that the citation deficiencies present in Plaintiff’s Motion to
Leave do not rise to the level of a Rule 11 violation. The Court will refrain from addressing
them in detail.
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 6

- 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
Response
Brief page
number
Case cited
(as it appears in Plaintiff’s Response
Brief)
Court’s observations
1 3 In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151
(2000), the Supreme Court
emphasized that circumstantial and
contextual evidence, including how
facially neutral comments are
perceived in light of prior age-related
treatment, may support an inference
of unlawful discrimination.
Case exists. Pincite is incorrect.
The cited page addresses direct
discriminatory age-based
comments resulting in
termination. Rather than
appearing at p. 151, it appears
the proposition may be
supported by p. 146-148.
2 3 Shelley v. Geren, the Ninth Circuit
held that “ambiguous or indirect”
comments, when viewed
collectively, may permit a factfinder
to conclude that discrimination
occurred. 666 F.3d 599, 608 (9th Cir.
2012).
Case exists. Quoted language
does not exist in the case. Pincite
is incorrect. Rather than
appearing at p. 608, it appears
the proposition may be
supported by p. 610-612.
3 3 The Ninth Circuit has recognized
that the “severe or pervasive”
standard can be met by persistent
derogatory remarks and patterns of
humiliation that interfere with the
plaintiff’s ability to perform her job.
See, Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters.,
Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 872–74 (9th Cir.
2001).
Case exists. Quoted language
does not exist in the case.
4 4 In Gestalt v. City of Gloucester,
2021 WL 4169431 (D. Mass. 2021),
the court denied dismissal where the
plaintiff was told she “dressed
young” and lacked the gravitas
expected of her role.
Case does not exist.
5 4 Under National R.R. Passenger
Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101
(2002), a hostile work environment
claim is timely if “an act
contributing to the claim occurs
within the filing period,” even if the
conduct began earlier.
Case exists. Quote is correct.
Pincite is absent, but this issue
does not constitute grounds for a
Rule 11 violation.
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
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
6 4 See also, Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 893 (9th Cir.
2005) (hostile acts before and within
300-day window are admissible if
“sufficiently related to constitute part
of the same hostile environment”).
Case exists. Quoted language
does not exist in the case.
7 4 A constructive discharge occurs
where “a reasonable person in the
employee’s position would have felt
compelled to resign because of
intolerable and discriminatory
working conditions.” See, Poland v.
Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th
Cir. 2007.
Case exists. Quoted language is
mostly correct, however, it does
not properly attribute the
internally quoted and adds
“discriminatory.”
8 5 Courts have repeatedly held that an
employer’s failure to remedy a
known hostile environment based on
their membership in a protected class
supports constructive discharge. See,
Thomas v. Douglas, 877 F.2d 1428,
1434 (9th Cir. 1989).
Case exists. However, Thomas
does not address protected
classes’ support for constructive
discharge when an employer
fails to remedy a hostile work
environment. Further, the case
ruled in favor of the employer,
finding that the employee was
not subjected to harassment that
could be considered punishment
or retaliation.
9 5 Judicial complaints may include
claims that are “like or reasonably
related to the allegations” in the
administrative charge. Green v. Los
Angeles County Superintendent of
Schools, 883 F.2d 1472, 1476 (9th
Cir. 1989).
Case exists. Quote is mostly
correct. However, it does not
attribute the internally quoted
and cited language and omits
words, but this issue does not
constitute grounds for a Rule 11
violation.
At the Hearing, Mr. Moosbrugger stated under oath that he uses an artificial
intelligence (“AI”) software called Federally Lawyer, which is an add-on to the enterprise
version of ChatGPT. (Tr. Hr’g. 8:25-9:4) Mr. Moosbrugger stated that he uses the software
as a research and drafting tool to assist with his caseload. (Id. at 17:1-4). When using the
AI software, Mr. Moosbrugger asserts that he generally independently checks any
generated cases. (Id. at 17:4-6). However, due to his delay in filing Plaintiff’s Response
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
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
Brief, Mr. Moosbrugger admitted that he did not independently review any case citations
before submitting the brief to the Court. (Id. at 18:11-21). Mr. Moosbrugger admitted that
he only attempted to confirm accuracy of the cases by asking ChatGPT “is all legal
authority and citation up to date and accurate, meaning is it still good precedent, and are
they all real cases?” (Id. at 18:19-19:1). Mr. Moosbrugger stated that since the Court’s
Order to Show Cause, he has self-reported his improper use of AI in this matter to the State
Bar of Arizona and is reviewing filings of other pending matters to report other citation-
related deficiencies, if any. (Id. at 17:11-16). Further, Mr. Moosbrugger admits that, as a
solo practitioner, litigating labor-intensive cases with deadlines can be difficult, but he is
responsible for any pleadings bearing his signature. (Id. at 22:19-23:17).
The imposition of sanctions against parties that submit AI-generated case law is
prevalent. Throughout the federal district courts, sanctions under Rule 11 for citations to
non-existent case law and misrepresented holdings have included monetary sanctions, CLE
sanctions, reasonable attorney fees and costs to opposing counsel, and referral to
disciplinary authorities (or a combination thereof). See, e.g., Dehghani v. Castro, 782
F.Supp.3d 1051, 1062 (D. N.M. 2025) (affirming the magistrate judge’s decision to impose
monetary and CLE sanctions and require the attorney to self-report the incident to all bar
associations he is a member of.); see also Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 464-
66 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that a monetary sanction of $5000 on the attorneys and their
law firm was sufficient but not more than necessary for deterrence.); see also Wadsworth
v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 499 (D. Wyo. 2025) (removing the drafting attorney as
counsel of record, and imposing a $3,000 sanction on the drafting attorney and a $1,000
sanction on the other two attorneys for failing to review the document.); see also Buchanan
v. Vuori, Inc., No. 23-CV-01121-NC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (a solo practitioner
representing plaintiffs in a class action used six different AI tools to file a motion that
contained eight misquoted cases and one non-existent case; the court struck the motion,
imposed a $250 sanction, and referred the attorney to the court’s standing committee on
professional conduct.)
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
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
The Court recognizes that Mr. Moosbrugger has improperly submitted non-existent
case law and misrepresented holdings. However, the Court finds that, based on the facts in
this matter, severe sanctions are not warranted.
Mr. Moosbrugger openly and honestly admitted to his improper use of AI, including
the submission of hallucinated citations to this Court. Although Mr. Moosbrugger is a solo
practitioner who does not have other attorneys available for assistance, he understands that
he is responsible for his filings, cannot rely solely on AI to check his citations, and must
verify them himself. In addition, Mr. Moosbrugger took the initiative to self-report to the
State Bar for his improper use of AI and contends that he is reviewing all other pending
matters.
Mr. Moosbrugger’s citation deficient Response Brief did not prejudice Plaintiff, as
the Court found that she could not prevail on the merits of the case. Additionally, Mr.
Moosbrugger represented this case on a contingency fee basis and, as a result of the Court’s
dismissal, he did not collect any fee from Plaintiff. The Court further finds, under the facts
of this case, the public humiliation in this matter is a sufficient remedy.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court encourages Mr. Moosbrugger to participate in
educational seminars focused on the appropriate and potentially hazardous legal
applications of AI. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; see also LRCiv 83.1(f).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED finding that no further sanctions should be imposed on Matthew
V. Moosbrugger.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to provide copies of
this Order to the State Bar of Arizona Disciplinary Committee.
Dated this 8th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-01550-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/17/25 Page 6 of 6